Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Swansea Harbour Bill,

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

Medway Conservancy Bill [Lords],

Sunderland Gas Bill [Lords],

Read a second time, and committed.

City and South London Railway Bill [by Order],

Read a second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPANESE SILK TRADE (WAGES).

Mr. REMER: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take steps to find out what are the wages paid by Japanese employers in the Japanese silk trade; and whether he will undertake that there shall be no free imports of Japanese silk unless the Japanese silk manufacturers pay British trade union wages and conditions?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Auckland Geddes): I will ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour whether he can obtain any recent information as to the first part of this question. As regards the second, I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on Monday last.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a volume was published by the Japanese Minister of Finance in 1918 which contained this information, and that the rates of wages stated therein are 7½d. to 11d. per day per man, and 4½d. to 8d.,per day per woman?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member seems to be better informed than the Minister.

Mr. REMER: Arising out of that answer

Mr. SPEAKER: That was not an answer.

Mr. REMER: I beg to give notice that I will refer to this question on the Motion for Adjournment this evening.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPULSORY PILOTAGE (EAST COAST PORTS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the dissatisfaction among the masters of foreign-going and home trade merchant steamers, and also among the pilots on the East Coast, at the withdrawal of the Regulations making pilotage compulsory by licensed pilots at East Coast ports; and if he will consider orders being given that no shipmasters in the foreign-going and home trade ships shall hold a pilotage certificate for British harbours?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Board of Trade have no power to issue such an Order, but, even if it had, I doubt if it would be desirable to prohibit British masters of British ships from piloting their ships into British harbours in cases where the local pilotage authority does not consider such a course necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPS' BUNKER COAL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the great loss suffered by the Humber pilots through their having to pay the export price of 42s. 6d. per ton of coal for their own pilot cutters instead of the price under the Coal Limitation Act of about 32s. a ton; and, as this coal is burnt at the mouth of the Humber and does not go abroad, will he consider charging the reduced rate for this coal, as the pilots cannot increase their charges in the same way as the ship owners raise their freights?

Sir A. GEDDES: The Price of Coat (Limitation) Act, 1915, does not apply to ships' bunker coal. Complaint has not previously been made that the application
of the bunker coal prices to pilot cutters entailed great loss to the Humber pilots, but if the hon. and gallant Member will arrange for a full statement to be submitted on behalf of the pilots affected, the question of modifying the present charges will be fully considered.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are sea-going trawlers supplied with coal under the Domestic Prices Order?

Sir A. GEDDES: No.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that correspondence has been going on between the Coal Controller and the Humber pilots on this matter for the last six weeks?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have no information how long correspondence has been going on. Correspondence has been going on with nearly every port in the country with regard to the prices of bunker coal, which many people in the ports do not understand include freight charges in this country, and therefore there are different prices at different ports.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRUSHES (IMPORT TRADE).

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the agreement with Japan, allowing that country to import brushes into the United Kingdom to the extent of its 1916 imports, was made; for what period or until what date is it to continue; and has His Majesty's Government any right to determine it at any earlier date or to revise or vary it?

Brigadier-General COLVIN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether Japan and Italy are still permitted to import into this country brushes to the extent of their 1916 importations duty free; whether this country is capable of supplying its own requirements; and, if so, whether, in view of the cheapness of labour in Italy and Japan, he proposes to take any steps to enable British brush manufacturers to compete with free imports and maintain the industry?

Sir A. GEDDES: In the spring of 1918 a concession was made to certain classes of goods of Italian origin, and, in view of an undertaking previously given to the
Japanese Government, these concessions were extended to similar classes of goods of Japanese origin. The concession originally provided for the unrestricted importation of brushes, but in February of this year it was announced to the Japanese Government that unrestricted licensing would have to be replaced by the issue of licences to an amount not exceeding the imports of the year 1916. The question is at present under consideration by the Import Consultative Council.

Mr. HERBERT: I will call attention to this matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGE BY AEROPLANES.

Notice of the following question had been given by Sir PHILIP MAGNUS:

7. To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is considering the measures necessary to provide compensation for damage to private property or loss of life caused by any kind of aeroplane, whether in use for commercial, experimental, or other objects?

Sir P. MAGNUS: I put this question down on Wednesday, and transferred it to this day. On Thursday I saw the answer to it in the "Times" newspaper. I propose to put some supplementary questions on some other day.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEATHER PURCHASES (UNITED STATES).

Mr. BARRAND: 9 and 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) why Sir Percy Daniels was seat to the United States to purchase leather for the production of civilian boots when there are large stocks in hand in this country available for this purpose; whether the purchases so made in the United States amount to several millions sterling; whether he is aware that the importation of this leather has demoralised the market in this country; (2) whether he is aware that, as a consequence of the Government's policy of purchasing quantities of leather in the United States when there is an ample supply in this country, some of the largest British leather manufacturers are unable to dispose of their products and have been compelled to reduce largely their output,
thus adding to the unemployment already existing; and what action he proposes to to take in regard to the matter?

Captain BOWYER: 43.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department whether the directorate of raw materials recently purchased large amounts of leather in America for shipment to Great Britain; whether he will state what steps were taken before effecting this purchase to obtain tenders from leather manufacturers in this country; whether he is aware that there are several million square feet of leather, similar to that about to be imported, unsold in the hands of the producers in this country; and whether, in view of the present urgency of finding employment in this country, he will in the future take steps to see that all home manufacturers are given the opportunity of fulfilling these contracts before the orders are sent to foreign firms?

The DEPUTY-MINISTER of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I have been asked to reply to this question. Approximately thirty-nine and a half million feet of fine upper leathers have been purchased by Sir Percy Daniels in the United States and Canada at a cost of about £3,500,000. Before the purchase was made, inquiries revealed a serious shortage in this country, and the purchase had the entire approval of the Leather Council, which is fully representative of the whole leather trade.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are we to understand from the words "demoralised the market in this country" that leather was getting too cheap?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I cannot give any 'explanation of the question. I am only responsible for the answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — POTTERY INDUSTRY (COAL SUPPLIES).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the pottery industry is being seriously handicapped by inability to obtain coal; and what steps he proposes to take to enable this export trade to continue?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that industry generally, including the pottery industry, is handicapped by inability to obtain adequate supplies of coal, owing to
the fact that the present rate of output is insufficient to meet the normal requirements of the country. Everything possible is being done to provide for the equitable distribution amongst the various industries of such supplies of coal as. are available.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that coal is the raw material of the pottery industry, and is not merely the motive power? Is he further aware that there is sufficient coal produced in the North of Staffordshire, but, unfortunately, it is being shipped out of the country to other industries?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am well aware of the importance of coal to all industries. I am also well aware that it is necessary to distribute the coal as fairly as we can in view of the shortage, just as it was necessary to distribute food in the past as fairly as necessary, and there is no discrimination against the pottery industry.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is this the way in which the Board of Trade encourages our export trade, which is so important at present?

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION.

PASSENGER FARES.

Sir PHILIP MAGNUS: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade approximately when railway fares will be reduced to the amount printed on railway tickets as the charge for the journey; and, if not, whether he can arrange that the fare printed on the tickets shall correspond with the amount charged, and so prevent disappointment and the possible errors of passengers in computing the correct fare?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid that I cannot give any indication of the date on which the existing railway fares are likely to be reduced. The suggestion made in the second part of the question will be carefully considered, but any alteration in the present system might cause more confusion than it would avoid.

WORKMEN'S EXCURSIONS.

Mr. A. SHORT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate during the summer months special railway excursions with reduced railway fares for workmen's trips?

Sir A. GEDDES: I regret that, in view of the present position of the railways, a general arrangement of the nature indicated cannot be made.

CHILDREN'S CHEAP TKIPS.

Mr. CAIRNS: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will extend the reduced railway fares to children's trips belonging to friendly societies, such as Rechabites, Foresters, and others, and thus treat all children alike?

Mr. RAMSDEN: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if the reduced fares to be granted to parties of school children are also available for the friendly societies and trade union juveniles; and, if not, if he will state the reasons actuating this differentiation of treatment?

Sir A. GEDDES: All children attend, or, at least, ought to attend schools, and, therefore, the concession given to schools gives every child one chance of having a cheap trip, whereas a concession given to societies of the nature indicated would not cover all children and, in the case of the children it did cover, would be giving them a second cheap trip. I am afraid that to give every child two cheap trips would throw a greater strain on the railways than they in their present state are able to bear.

Mr. BRIANT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the term "school children" does not cover all children but covers all school children? The question relates to "children" and not "school children" at all.

Sir A. GEDDES: "School children" covers children of school age. Below that you have the infants, and above it you pass into the other class—workers.

Mr. CAIRNS: All children commence work before fourteen. This would be applicable to them at fifteen.

STATION STAFFS, LONDON.

Mr. GILBERT: 23 and 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) whether he is aware that at a great many of the London railway termini there is a scarcity of both railway porters and taxi cabs; whether, in view of the number of demobilised men who are at present unemployed, he will ask the Railway Executive Committee to instruct the various railway companies to employ a number of these men either as inside or outside station
porters and so help to relieve the inconvenience which travellers now suffer from and will be greatly increased with the holiday traffic; (2) whether he is aware that at London railway termini and goods stations numbers of women are still being employed as parcel porters; and whether, in view of the number of demobilised men who are unemployed at the present time, he will instruct the Railway Executive Committee to issue orders to the railway companies that these men should have preference for this kind of work?

Sir A. GEDDES: I will reply to this and the following question together. I am calling the attention of the Railway Executive Committee to the points raised.

CLOSED SUBWAY, SOUTH KENSINGTON.

Sir P. MAGNUS: 74.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware of the inconvenience, especially to members of the University of London, which is caused by the continued closure of the covered passage between the South Kensington railway station and the corner of the Imperial Institute Road; and whether he can now state when the passage will be open to the general public?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir A. Mond): The use of this passage for the storage of exhibits from the Imperial Institute ceased on the 17th ultimo, and it was forthwith surrendered to the Metropolitan District Railway Company. The matter of opening rests with the company.

Oral Answers to Questions — DETAINED ENEMY SHIPS (PROFITS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what profit was earned by the thirty-four Austrian and German detained steamships managed for the British Government by Messrs. Everett and Newbigin, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and paid over into the Exchequer during the period in which they were run on the basis set out by the President of the Board of Trade in his statement of 16th February, 1915; and what amount the managers received for their services?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The trading profits of the vessels referred to for the period 1st January, 1915, to 30th September, 1918, the latest date to which
the accounts have been finally made up, is £1,550,850. In arriving at the net trading profit on a commercial basis provision would have to be made out of the above amount for depreciation and interest, and for the replacement of vessels lost so far as not covered by insurance. The remuneration paid to the managers for their services in respect of these and other vessels in the coasting trade office was at the rate of £5,000 per annum.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY COMMISSION.

Mr. JESSON: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before the Coal Industry Commission reports, the various sections of coal consumers indicated in the Coal Conservation Sub-Committee's Report will be allowed to place their views before the Commission; whether bodies organised in the interests of domestic consumers who are now paying £3 per ton for their coal will be entitled to be heard also; whether any of these bodies have already applied to be heard and have been refused; and, if so, what were the names of these organisations, and on what grounds they were refused?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Horne): I have been asked to reply to this question. I am informed that before the Coal Industry Commission reports some of the classes of coal consumers referred to will have given evidence specifically, and the others generally through the medium of witnesses nominated by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. Steps are being taken to obtain evidence from a body representative of domestic consumers.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOSS OF SS. "LEINSTER."

Brigadiar-General Sir OWEN THOMAS: 14 and 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he is aware that, at an interview at the Admiralty on the 21st March last, it was admitted that an official of the Cunard Company, whose case was not covered by the War Risks Association, received a compassionate allowance from the Board of Trade, and that in the case of Mr. Ferber, who was in the same position as the above-mentioned officer, the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company was directed to make an application for
a similar allowance, and was led to believe that the application would be treated in the same way, as it was admitted it ought to be. and that the company has now been informed by the Board of Trade that it has no fund from which special allowances can be made in such cases; (2) whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of the chairman of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company at its last half-yearly meeting, in which it was stated that the "Leinster" was lost owing to the culpable negligence of those responsible for her safety; whether the Government is now prepared to hold a sworn judicial inquiry into all the circumstances attending the loss of this mail packet; and whether the Government is prepared to pension adequately the dependants of the officers, sailors, soldiers, and civilians who lost their lives in consequence of the torpedoing of the vessel, to compensate fully the survivors for their loss, and to pension adequately the dependants of the officers and crew of the packet, and those of the officials of the company who were on board at the time of the disaster?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have carefully inquired into the facts embodied in these two questions, and I find that the dependants of all officers, sailors, soldiers, and civilians employed by the Government who lost their lives when the "Leinster" was sunk have received such compensation for their loss as financial grants can give. Similarly the dependants of the officers and crew of the ship have been compensated. These financial payments have been made under the compensation and pension schemes administered by the Board of Trade and Ministry of Pensions respectively. The Government are unable to accept the obligation to compensate the dependants of other persons who lost their lives. The statement that the dependants of an official of the Cunard Company who lost his life at sea through enemy action, received compensation from the Board of Trade is both inaccurate and misleading. The Cunard Company official was at the time of his death engaged by the Director of Transports and Shipping to go over to France to superintend arrangements there for the disembarkation of American troops. The pension to his dependants was granted by the Admiralty under the Injuries in War (Compensation) Scheme. Mr. Ferber was an official of the City of Dublin Steam Packet Company, and was travelling on the business of the company.
While the Government have every sympathy with all the dependants of those who lost their lives at sea, not only when the "Leinster" was sunk, I do not see how it can be expected that the dependants of those who were not members of the crew and were not on Government business should receive compensation at the expense of the taxpayer. The Government does not consider that an inquiry at this date would serve any useful purpose.

Sir O. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mrs. Williams, widow of the chief fireman of the "Leinster"—who would have been getting £5 a week if he had been alive to-day—is at the present time getting 4s. l0d. a week? How can she live on 4s. l0d. a week? I have had no reply to the first part of question 14 as to the allegation of culpable negligence of the Government in not looking after a ship which was carrying 500 troops per day.

Sir A. GEDDES: I was not aware of the sum allotted to any of the dependants, but if the hon. Member will provide me with information about any special cases of hardship I will most certainly at once have them fully investigated, and see if anything can be done. In regard to the first part of question 14, the Government cannot admit any negligence.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's second question as to whether he proposes to hold a sworn judicial inquiry into all the circumstances attending the loss of this mail packet?

Sir A. GEDDES: I am sorry if my hon. and gallant Friend did not hear my reply:
The Government does not consider that an inquiry at this date would serve any useful purpose.

Captain REDMOND: Why should there be differentiation in the Government attitude towards a ship owned by an Irish company which has been torpedoed by enemy action and a Cunard liner? If there was an inquiry into the case of the "Lusitania," why should there not be an inquiry into the case of the "Leinster"?

Mr. WIGNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a Return made of the whole list of pensions to the dependants who lost their lives in the "Leinster"? We have a list here and they appear to be totally inadequate.

Sir A. GEDDES: If there are any cases of special hardship, I shall be pleased to have them looked into,. to see what the position is. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member (Captain Redmond), there was no differentiation.

Captain REDMOND: Will the right hon. Member inform himself, before coming to answer questions, as to the pensions actually granted? Can he say on what basis these pensions were allotted? Is he aware of the fact that they were allotted on prewar wages, and that the poor dependants of the men who went down in the "Leinster" are getting inadequate pensions based on pre-war wages and not on modern conditions?

Sir A. GEDDES: As regards informing myself, I spent from two and a half to three hours looking up this matter in order to be able to answer these questions. I did not go into the actual amount of pensions because they are on scales and it is no part of my functions to go into the scale of pensions.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Would not an investigation disclose the fact that the ship had no option but to obey orders and go out, although they knew they were facing their fate owing to the fact that there were torpedoes outside the harbour?

Mr. DONNELLY: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any compensation has been awarded for loss sustained to those persons who sent registered or other postal packets or letters containing money or articles or value per the City of Dublin steamship "Leinster," sunk in the Irish Sea by an enemy submarine?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. Compensation is not paid by the Post Office when a letter or other postal packet, whether registered or not, is lost through enemy action.

Captain REDMOND: Is compensation paid by any Government Department at all?

Mr. ILLINGWORTH: I must have notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — PAPER IMPORTS.

Mr. RAPER: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that in
the middle of May a list was issued by the Board of Trade specifying certain classes of paper for which import licences would be freely granted; that this list was revised almost immediately, and that on the 27th May the free paper licence list was entirely withdrawn without any official notice being issued to the trade, with the result that contracts had been and still are being entered into by firms for the import of the classes of paper referred to in the original free list; and whether it is now proposed to issue an amended list of papers which may be freely imported?

Sir A. GEDDES: It is the case that a list was issued by the Board of Trade specifying certain classes of paper for which import licences would be freely granted, and that this list was subsequently revised and ultimately withdrawn upon the same official notice to the trade as was given when it was issued. Licences will be granted for the importation of all paper, of the classes scheduled on the original free list, which was purchased during the time the list was in operation. The answer to the last part of the question is in the negative. The present Regulations regarding imports of paper are based upon the unanimous recommendations of the Paper Industry Inquiry Committee, upon which producers and consumers of paper were represented in equal numbers.

Mr. BALDWIN RAPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where and how the original notice was given to the trade; if it is a fact that there is a demand for certain classes of paper in excess of what is available of Empire supplies, and whether he proposes to allow the users of paper to import supplies of paper which they cannot purchase within the Empire?

Sir A. GEDDES: As to whether there is a shortage of paper within the Empire, I would refer the hon. Member to the actual Order, in which he will see that in the event of any shortage of supply the Board of Trade is in a position, and is prepared and willing, to license supplies being brought from other sources.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Can the light hon. Gentleman say why the import of paper is restricted?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, with the greatest possible pleasure. It is being restricted at the present time in order that the paper industry, which was entirely disor-
ganised in certain parts by the War, should have an opportunity to re-establish itself and be able to give all the employment it can to the workers engaged in the industry.

Captain BENN: Is it the policy of the Government to maintain the high price of paper?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member is raising matter for debate.

Mr. LAMBERT: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has received a protest from the Federation of Southwestern Newspaper Owners against the Order restricting the import of paper from abroad and compelling paper users to purchase 80 per cent. of their supplies from British mills; and what reason is there for such restrictions except to afford protective privilege to concerns which have not had the enterprise to instal and use up-to-date methods and machinery?

Sir A. GEDDES: I have received the protest from the Federation of Southwestern Newspaper Owners to which the hon. Member refers. The Regulations against which this protest is directed are based upon the unanimous recommendations of the Paper Industry Inquiry Committee, upon which producers and consumers were represented in equal numbers. They form, in my opinion, as satisfactory and equitable a solution as is possible of an exceedingly difficult problem; and they arc, I believe, generally accepted as such by the different interests concerned. The paper industry, like many others, has been greatly disturbed by war conditions. The object of the present Regulations is to safeguard the industry for a limited period in accordance with the transitional trade policy which is designed to give an opportunity of re-establishing normal conditions.

Mr. STURROCK: What does "limited period" mean?

Sir A. GEDDES: The trade policy of the Government was described in this House in the first half of March. The date announced was the 1st September.

Oral Answers to Questions — CLOTHES AND BOOTS (PRICES).

Mr. LAMBERT: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that the present prices for clothes and boots are inflicting grave hardship upon large
sections of the population; and what action the Board of Trade has taken or proposes to take in order to limit profits in the production and sale of articles of prime necessity?

Sir A. GEDDES: I would refer the right hon. Member to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Barnard Castle on 28th May.

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what action the Board of Trade has taken or proposes to take in order to limit the profits in the production and sale of articles of prime necessities; and whether he has ever given any reply to that question in the House?

Sir A. GEDDES: This is the first time I have been asked that particular question in this particular form. I have given an answer upon the general point. In regard to what action the Board of Trade is taking, it is at present investigating the whole position as to prices and is preparing a series of proposals which will be laid before the House, I hope, at no distant date.

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take care to check the rapacity of these profiteers?

Sir A. GEDDES: Yes, if the Board of Trade is once armed with the necessary power it will be able to do so.

Captain BENN: Is there any restriction, on the import?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL (EXPORT DUTY).

Sir E. BEAUCHAMP: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether vessels fishing from Cardiff are exempted from the Export Duty on coal; and, if so, whether a similar exemption will be granted to vessels fishing from Lowestoft?

Sir A. GEDDES: My hon. Friend appears to be under some misapprehension. No Export Duty is charged upon coal exported from this country, or used for ships' bunkers.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON EXPORTS (FRANCE).

Mr. SUGDEN: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he proposes to take to obtain the sanction of the
French authorities to the removing of their present limitations on licences for the import of many cotton goods from this country?

Sir A. GEDDES: The hon. Member is aware that France has suffered cruel losses and has been forced to borrow heavily from this country. It would neither be fair nor reasonable of the British Government to urge the French Government to increase its liabilities to this country by the purchase of goods which, in the opinion of our Ally, are not necessary to meet the needs of her population.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CURRENCY (COMMITTEE).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the proposed Commission on Indian Currency will sit in London; and whether it will contain, besides exchange bankers and merchants, representatives of the House of Commons conversant with exchange, and the experts of British manufacturers?

Mr. PRATT (Lord of the Treasury): The Committee will sit in London. I would refer to my reply to similar questions on the 28th ultimo. The names of the members were published on Friday last.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that none of the members of the Commission are Members of this House, and that consequently the Commission represents private interests instead of the public interest?

Mr. STEWART: 34.
asked whether the terms of reference to the Indian Currency Commission debar the Commission from considering whether the legislation of 1893 closing the Indian mints to the free coinage of silver should be removed; and whether they will also be debarred from considering any possible scheme for stabilising the price of silver by international arrangement or otherwise, in view of the large requirements of India for silver and of the violent fluctuations which are continually taking place in that metal?

Mr. PRATT: The policy of the legislation of 1893, whereby the mints are closed to the free coinage of silver and a gold standard has been established, are not
with in the scope of the reference to the Committee. The reference will permit the Committee to consider arrangements for stabilising the price of silver that do not involve the setting up of a bimetallic standard.

Mr. STEWART: If they cannot consider the silver question, will the hon. Gentleman let us know what they are talking about?

Mr. PRATT: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down another question.

MONTAGU-CHELMSFORD REFORM SCHEME.

Colonel YATE: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether the views of the local Governments in India on the subject of the Montagu-Chelmsford Reform scheme have yet been formally presented; and whether they will be published in time for examination before the introduction of the proposed Indian Reform Bill?

Mr. PRATT: The Papers were formally presented on 19th May, and issued on 28th May. I presume that they are now in the possession of my hon. and gallant Friend?

Colonel YATE: Will the hon. Member inform the Secretary of State that the deliberate delaying of the production of these papers deprives us of the opportunity of considering them before the introduction of the Bill?

Mr. PRATT: I will communicate that to my right hon. Friend.

GERMAN MISSIONARIES.

Sir A. FELL: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for India if definite arrangements have been made that any German missionaries who may have been left in India will be sent back to Germany as soon as may be, that none of them shall be allowed to return to India after the Peace, and that are will be taken that they do not return in the guise of Swiss or other nationality?

Mr. PRATT: The Secretary of State has no doubt that as soon as opportunity offers the Government of India will repatriate in accordance with their settled policy the few German missionaries who still remain in India, with such individual exceptions (if any) as reasons of humanity may make expedient. The answer to the second and last parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Sir J. D. REES: Is the Secretary of State aware of the insidious influence of these missionaries, and that they are always trying to take advantage of their position to make mischief, and will he consider the propriety of making no exceptions?

GERMAN STORES.

Sir A. FELL: 29.
asked if it is certain that the stores in the native quarters of the large towns in India, which before the War were established by Germans for the sale of German goods, will not be opened after the Peace by Germans or by any other persons acting for, or controlled by, Germans?

Mr. PRATT: The Secretary of State is in communication with the Government of India as to the treatment of ex-enemy aliens in trade after the War. At present he is not in a position to make a statement on the subject.

Sir A. FELL: Have these stores been taken possession of by the Indian Government, or are they being worked as German stores?

Mr. PRATT: I regret that I cannot add anything to the answer that has been already given.

MAJOR-GENERAL SHAW.

Major McMICKING: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that certain statements in the telegram from the Government of India, which was read to the House of Commons on the 1st August, 1916, with reference to Major-General Shaw were unfounded, and were completely refuted in Major-General Shaw's memorial; that no Court of Inquiry in the manner prescribed by the Regulations has been held to inquire into Major General Shaw's conduct in regard to the troop-train incident; and whether, in these circumstances, he will lay the memorial and papers connected with the Karachi troop-train incident upon the Table of the House?

Mr. PRATT: As regards the merits of the case the Secretary of State has nothing to add to the answers which he gave to the hon. Member and to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds on the 28th May. The Secretary of State will consider whether any useful purpose would be served by laying Papers.

Major McMICKING: Is not the censure of this gallant officer based now on confidential and ex parte statements which have not been communicated to him?

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it not a fact that the statement of the Secretary of State on this subject was based on an Inquiry which did not inquire into the case of General Shaw, and further, that the Court was quite incompetent to inquire into the case of a senior officer of General Shaw's rank?

INDIA OFFICE (LORD CREWE'S COMMITTEE).

Colonel YATE: 31.
asked when the Report of Lord Crewe's Committee on the India Office will be published; and whether the Report of this Committee will affect the provisions of the Government of India Bill as introduced by the Government?

Mr. PRATT: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to Paragraph XXIII. of the Explanatory Memorandum issued with the Government of India Bill. It is intended that the Report of Lord Crewe's Committee should be ready in good time before the Bill is considered in Joint Committee.

Colonel YATE: Does that mean that if any additions are found to be necessary they can be put in after the Second Reading of the Bill?

Mr. PRATT: I cannot add anything to the answer which has been already given.

IMPERIAL CABINET.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir J. NORTON GRIFFITHS: 32.
asked who are the present representatives of the Indian Empire in the Imperial Cabinet?

Mr. PRATT: The Secretary of State, the Maharaja of Bikanir, and Lord Sinha.

MALICIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS.

Colonel YATE: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, considering that although the local governments may have powers to deal with wilful and malicious misrepresentations of the actions and intentions of the Government and its servants and with attacks upon them, this is a duty that should primarily be undertaken by the Government of India itself, he will therefore call the attention of the Government of India to their recent.
Resolution promising the fullest assurance of countenance and support to all servants of the Government of India charged with the onerous duty of suppressing excesses and direct them to take the necessary measures to put a stop to the virulence of criticism and misrepresentation that has lately been indulged in in certain portions of the Indian Press?

Mr. PRATT: It is the local governments and not the Government of India that have the requisite legal powers of action. The Secretary of State is not aware that the Government of India have been remiss in giving executive support to local governments in this matter.

Colonel YATE: May I request the hon. Member to ask the Secretary of State to look into this matter as the Government of India seem to have been very remiss?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSUL-GENERAL AT ROTTERDAM.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Mr. Ernest Maxse, His Majesty's Consul-General at Rotterdam, who is to succeed Mr. Hearn, His Majesty's Consul-General in Paris, is of German origin and at one time served in the Prussian cavalry?

The UNDER-SECRETARY Of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Cecil Harmsworth): Consul-General Maxse served in the First Hanoverian Lancers for two years, from 1885 to 1887. He is the son of the late Sir Henry Maxse, Colonel of the Coldstream Guards and Governor of Newfoundland, his mother being of Austrian origin. The position at present in regard to the Consulate-General at Paris is that the post is not yet vacant, it being still held by Mr. Hearn. The question of Mr. Hearn's successor is under consideration.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why is Mr. Hearn, who has done his work very well, being sacked from Paris?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There is no suggestion of Mr. Hearn being sacked from Paris.

Brigadier-General CROFT: Is it the policy of His Majesty's Government to see that no gentlemen who are sons of foreign parents or have foreign blood are given any of these appointments in the near future?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Foreign Office practice in these matters is very strict.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: Has any petition concerning this matter been received from the Chamber of Commerce in Paris?

Mr. BILLING: Has Mr. Maxse served in the War, and, if so, in what capacity?

Mr. BETTERTON: Has he not performed valuable services throughout the whole of the War?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMERCE BETWEEN ALLIED COUNTRIES.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to take any action in association with the Allies of this country to promote commerce between Allied countries and to restrain the diversion of capital to enemy countries occasioned by the abnormal rates of exchange at present ruling and the inducement of extended credit proffered to traders by enemy firms assisted by enemy banks; whether he has considered the effect of the virtual disappearance of coin from Belgium and other Allied countries; whether he proposes to promote any, and what, remedial measures to defeat the capture of Allied markets by enemy organisations and to afford further and better facilities to British traders to resume commercial relations with Allied correspondents in the markets from which they are at present excluded by existing economic conditions; and will he state on what principle the importation of raw materials by British firms into Belgium is prohibited, and take immediate steps to remove the opinion prevalent throughout Belgium that reconstruction is hampered by conditions improvised by the Allies which indicate that they are either unacquainted with or indifferent to the needs of Belgium?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The greater number of the topics touched on in the hon. and learned Member's comprehensive question are doubtless being studied by the Department of Oversea Trade and the Treasury, and I can only refer him to those Departments.
With regard, however, to the last part of the question, I take this opportunity of repeating, what I stated in this House on 15th May, that Belgium has, of course,
never been subject to the blockade, and His Majesty's Government do not prohibit the importation of raw materials into Belgium.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

RE-CONSTRDCTION.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been drawn to the article on Russia by Robert Minor; whether he is aware that this man is working in collaboration with Mr. Lincoln Steffens and Mr. William Bullitt; whether he is aware that two of these gentlemen are officially connected with the American Peace delegates; whether he is aware that they are carrying out active propaganda for stabilising the Bolshevik Government; and whether he will arrange for British interests to be represented on future official missions of this nature or, alternatively, will he reconsider the suggestion to appoint a commission from all parties to visit Russia and report on the internal conditions, thereby confirming or contradicting the diverse statements which are published and also enabling British enterprise to co-operate in the reconstruction of Russia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: If the hon. and gallant Member is referring to an article which appeared in the "Daily Herald" on 29th May, the answer to the first part of his question is in the affirmative. I have no information that Mr. Minor is collaborating with Mr. Steffens and Mr. Bullitt. So far as my information goes, Mr. Steffens has never had any official connection with the United States Peace Delegation in Paris. I understand that Mr. Bullitt was formerly a member of that delegation, but that he has resigned from this position. I am not aware that Mr. Steffens and Mr. Bullitt are carrying on propaganda for stabilising the Bolshevik Government. I am also not aware that the mission was of an official nature, but the hon. and gallant Member may rest assured that British interests will always be- represented on official Allied missions when this is considered desirable. I cannot, however, reconsider the alternative suggestion which he puts forward.

ADMIRAL KOLTCHAK'S GOVERNMENT.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's
Government has agreed to recognise the Government of Admiral Koltchak on certain conditions; and, if so, what those conditions are?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Allied and Associated Governments have addressed a communication to Admiral Koltchak in the sense indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend. Admiral Koltchak's reply has not yet been received, and I cannot at present state the conditions proposed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Do the conditions include the immediate summoning of the Constituent Assembly in Siberia?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I cannot be quite certain as to that. If the hon. Member will put down another question I will answer it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: It is on the Paper now—"What are those condition?

MILITARY OPERATIONS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will have instructions sent to the British officers with Admiral Koltchak, General Denikin, and the Finns, Esthonians, etc., that, as British aid is given to these Armies, it is their duty to see that warfare is carried on as humanely as possible, prisoners and civilians correctly treated, and the good name of this country protected from association with either Red or White methods of terror?

Captain GUEST (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury): My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. It is not considered necessary to issue the instructions suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend. The British Military authorities in the various Russian theatres are not only fully acquainted with the policy of His Majesty's Government, but may be trusted not to countenance barbarous methods of warfare and to report if there are grounds for supposing that reprisals of an undesirable character have bean carried out or are threatened.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: In view of the accusations that have been made in the "New Statesman" against the method of carrying on warfare by the Finns and General Denikin, would it not be practicable for the Government to send out instructions calling attention to those accusa-
tions and ordering that any butcheries should be immediately reported to His Majesty's Government?

Captain GUEST: The Government have got a great deal to do which is more authentic in the form of evidence than anything of that kind.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Would it not be possible to allow British war correspondents to go with those Armies as being the very best means of preventing anything of that nature, and is it not the fact that British war correspondents have been refused permission?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that, as it is not included in the question on the Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL SALUTES.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the fact that Chargés d' Affaires, Consuls-General, and Consuls are, under King's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, entitled to a salute of seven guns on visiting a ship upon going on board or quitting, but only once within twelve months and by one ship only on the same date, who keeps the record to see that this ration is not exceeded?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I would suggest that this question should be addressed to the First Lord of the Admiralty. The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular officers are not responsible for the correct observance of the Regulations governing the matter.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: May I ask the representative of the Admiralty, who is present, for an answer now?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): No. I should like to see it on the Order Paper.

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: I shall be very pleased to put it down again.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY'S COLONIES.

Mr. A. WILLIAMS: 40.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state what steps are being taken to give effect to the Prime Minis-
ter's undertaking given in June, 1917, that the dominant factor in determining the future of the German Colonies would be the wishes and sentiments of the inhabitants of the territories?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: The Peace Conference decided, after a full discussion that the German Colonies should be administered under a mandatory system, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the relevant clauses in the League of Nations Covenant.

Mr. WILLIAMS: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the uncertainty as to who is to be the mandatory is causing an emigration of the native population into British territory?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: There are some indications of that, but this is really a matter for the Peace Conference and not for the Foreign Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — ABYSSINIAN CORPORATION.

Mr. DAWES: 41.
asked the Under-secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to an advertisement published in the Press of the 29th May, 1919, inviting subscriptions for shares of a company called the Abyssinian Corporation, Limited, in which appears a letter, dated 13th May, 1919, from the Foreign Office addressed to Messrs. Erlangers, the promoters of the issue, which letter is the sole basis on which subscriptions are invited; how far the Foreign Office are concerned in the flotation of the company as indicated in the paragraph of the advertisement immediately following the letter; whether Messrs. Erlangers are receiving £30,000 for their services in connection with the issue; what proportion of this will be paid to the Foreign Office in return for the letter above mentioned; and whether other companies may expect to receive similar assistance from the Government Departments?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: As appears from the report from His Majesty's Representative in Abyssiania, which was communicated in the Foreign Office letter of 13th May referred to, the Minister is convinced of the exceptional opening for trade development at present offered by Abyssinia, and of the great value of organising British commercial and financial interests in order to take advantage of the oppor-
tunity presented. The Foreign Office being satisfied as to the correctness of Mr. Thesiger's appreciation of the position in regard to this gave the promoters of the new corporation, when approached by them, the full measure of assistance and advice which can properly be given to British business men of approved standing and repute aiming at the development of British enterprise in a foreign country. The assistance thus given included the personal interviews referred to in the above-mentioned Foreign Office letter, at which Mr. Thesiger gave to the directors the benefit of his knowledge of conditions in Abyssinia. This is the whole extent to which the Foreign Office have "been concerned in the flotation of the company."
As regards the financial arrangements between the corporation and Messrs. Erlanger, I possess no information beyond that contained in the prospectus itself. The same principles govern the conduct of the Foreign Office in their relations with all British firms, and, though each case must obviously be judged on its own merits, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the claims of any other company to Foreign Office assistance will receive the same consideration as those of the Abyssinian Corporation.

Mr. DAWES: Would my hon. Friend tell me whether the Government are receiving anything from Messrs. Erlangers in consideration of the eminent services rendered?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: No, Sir, certainly not.

Sir C. HENRY: Could my hon. Friend state if the appointment of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot as chairman of this company was made at the instigation of the Foreign Office, or if the Foreign Office was consulted as to this appointment?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I have no information as to that.

Mr. DAWES: Would the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether this has ever been done before?

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH KURDISTAN (OUTBREAKS).

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 42.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state where the reported
outbreak in South Kurdistan has taken place; whether the place of outbreak is in Persian or ex-Ottoman territory; whether any British soldiers have been captured by the insurgents; and what is the alleged cause of the outbreak?

Mr. PRATT: The outbreak occurred at Suleimaniyeh, a town in South Kurdistan in ex-Ottoman territory, where a Kurdish notable has obtained temporary control of the town, after an engagement with the local levies, in which the latter appear to have been worsted. The British officers and staff are prisoners, but are reported to be unharmed. Steps are being taken to extricate them, and to deal with the situation. The Kurdish Chief's action seems to be due to a wish to establish himself as an independent ruler.

Mr. A. HERBERT: Is my hon. Friend aware that a dangerous feeling of fear and suspicion is growing up against us amongst populations in the East who have been perfectly loyal during the War, and that only a clear statement of British policy will allay those suspicions?

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT LAND, SHROPSHIRE.

Sir C. HENRY: 44.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if he will state to what extent the property purchased by the Government at Sheriffhales, in Shropshire, for an agricultural colony for ex-soldiers has been developed for the purpose intended; how many ex-soldiers are being employed; and when it may be expected that the acreage will be fully utilised?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): With the exception of a small area that will be retained as a central farm, the farm settlement at Heath Hill will be divided into thirty-eight small holdings. The number of ex-Service men already provided with holdings is sixteen, eight others are at the settlement on probation, and nine are working as wage earners. The number of ex-Service men at the settlement is therefore thirty-three. In addition, six men have been accepted as probationers, but have not yet started. It will not be possible to provide the full number of small holdings contemplated until
additional cottages have been built, and it is hoped these will be completed by the end of the summer.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT (COMMISSION).

Captain W. BENN: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state when he will be able to announce the composition of the Commission to Egypt and a date for the commencement of its labours?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I hope to be able to make an announcement on the subject at an early date.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Does that mean before the House rises for the Whitsuntide Recess?

Mr. HARMSWORTH: I think that is very doubtful.

Oral Answers to Questions — RULES OF PROCEDURE.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will give a day to discuss the working of the new Rules of Procedure?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): No, Sir; I am not prepared at present to give a day for this purpose.

Sir F. BANBURY: If I can convince my right hon. Friend that there is a general feeling that this matter should be discussed, would that alter his opinion?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think it is quite right that it should be discussed, but I am pretty sure that it would not be the wish that it should be discussed until we have had the experience of this Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION AT WASHINGTON (CANADA).

Mr. GRATTAN DOYLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if, before the appointment of the new British Ambassador to Washington is determined, His Majesty's Government will consider whether, in view of Canada's geographical and economic position as regards the United States and her natural and vital interests at Washington, and in remembrance of the part Canada has played in every phase and activity of the War, the time is now opportune for the Dominion to have a special representative
at Washington, with a status and prestige commensurate with the new Canada which has developed during the years of the War?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I regret that I can add nothing to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies on the 20th May least to the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine and Western.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL PRE-WAR PENSIONS.

Major Sir B. FALLE: 48.
asked the Prime Minister if he can make any statement or suggestion regarding the old pensioners, Royal Navy, meaning all those pensioners over the age of fifty-five in 1914; and if he can hold out the hope that these men who have served their country will be considered in a pension scheme and pensioned on the new basic rate?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sorry that I cannot add anything to the answers which have been given on this subject by my right hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty?

Sir B. FALLE: May I put down this question again at an early date?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — KEY INDUSTRIES.

Lieut.-Colonel ARTHUR MURRAY: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the question as to what are or what are not key industries is under the consideration of His Majesty's Government; and, if so, whether this House will be afforded an opportunity of discussing the question before any definite decision is arrived at?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.

Sir H. CRAIK: 52.
asked the Prime Minister if, in order to make the best use in the public interest of the services of those experienced members of the Civil Service who were temporarily transferred to other offices during the exigencies of the War or who served in His Majesty's Forces, and also to give a safeguard against any arbitrary exercise of
personal patronage while the usual conditions of entry into the Civil Service by competition continue to be suspended, he will appoint a Committee, on which this House will be represented, to review the lists of those eligible for appointment?

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I am sending my right hon. Friend copies of the Treasury Circulars of 29th January, 26th February, and14th March last, from which he will see that steps have already been taken to secure that posts in the new Departments and in new branches of old Departments shall be filled by permanent Civil servants (including those specifically referred to in the question) who have proved themselves fit for promotion to posts superior in status and emoluments to their substantive posts in the service. I am satisfied that the arrangements under the Treasury Circulars in question will provide a satisfactory and impartial method of testing the abilities of the various candidates, and I am accordingly not prepared to adopt my right hon. Friend's suggestion. I might add that as regards appointments made by the open competitive selection system, the arbitrary exercise of personal patronage is excluded by a warning which forms a part of the various Regulations that "any attempt on the part of a candidate to enlist support for his application through Members of Parliament or other influential persons will disqualify him for appointment."

Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask if those inquiries conducted in the Treasury will relate to the higher appointments, or are confined to those appointments under a certain amount per year?

Mr. BALDWIN: I will endeavour to find out for my hon. Friend.

Mr. ROSE: Can the hon. Gentleman say how far the disqualifications to which he has alluded will affect a number of persons who have been appointed without examination during the War period?

Mr. BALDWIN: It is obviously impossible to answer that without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR CABINET.

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether any alterations in the organisation of the War Cabinet are
contemplated in order to meet the changed conditions arising from the reversion from war to peace legislation?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir; but the exact nature of the change cannot be settled until after the return from Paris of the Peace Delegation.

Sir F. LOWE: Is it proposed to continue the government of the country by a War Cabinet after the War is over and Peace is signed?

Mr. BONAR LAW: My answer is, that is not the intention.

Mr. MacVEAGH: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the old-fashioned Cabinet is still in existence, and, if so, when it last met?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Of course, it is not in existence. The War Cabinet took its place.

Oral Answers to Questions — PLAGUE (EASTERN AND CENTRAL EUROPE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 54.
asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government are aware of the danger of an outbreak of plague in Eastern and Central Europe this coming summer due to the blockade and civil war; and what steps of a precautionary measure are being taken to prevent its spread to this country?

The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Dr. Addison): The precautions for preventing the introduction and spread of plague in this country are prescribed in General Regulations made by the Local Government Board in 1907. I will send a copy of these Regulations to the hon. and gallant Member. I am not aware of any special danger of an outbreak of plague in the regions referred to, but the precautions taken by the port sanitary authorities of this country under the supervision of the Medical Department of the Local Government Board are being carefully carried out, and strict watch is kept on vessels coming from plague-infected countries. These measures have proved very successful in the past in protecting the country from plague.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical profession are very alarmed at the
conditions which are likely to prevail next summer, and that the ordinary means to prevent plague will not safeguard us unless exceptional means are taken?

Dr. ADDISON: I am well aware of the alarm to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and, as a result, a joint body representing the different services has been at work on this subject for several weeks past.

Captain W. BENN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Blockade excludes us from sending drugs to those countries?

Dr. ADDISON: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUPPLY OF AMMUNITION.

Colonel THORNE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware of the controversy that is now taking place between Mr. Asquith and Lord French in connection with the supply of ammunition of our Armies in the early months of the War; and if he will agree to setting up a small Committee to inquire into the matter and to report in the House as far as possible?

Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not think that the course suggested in the last part of the question is desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT OF INDIA BILL.

Colonel YATE: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the proposal that the Bill to make further provision, with respect to the Government of India should after it had been introduced, according to the promise made last Session, be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses that would hear evidence, discuss the alternative, and upon whose-recommendations the House would ultimately form judgment, he will now postpone the Second Reading of the Bill, fixed for Thursday, 5th June, till after that Joint Committee has reported?

Mr. BONAR LAW: No, Sir; the Government is pledged to recommend to Parliament that the Bill should be referred to-a Joint Committee after Second Reading. This pledge was made in the House of Lords as long ago as the 23rd October last year, and has often been repeated in.
this House. This procedure is well known in Parliamentary practice, but I know of no precedent of referring a Bill to a Joint Committee before its Second Reading.

Colonel YATE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of the provincial Governments of India have refused diarchy and have submitted an alternative scheme; and if this Joint Committee approve the decision of the provincial Governments can the Government of India Bill be altered after the Second Beading?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I have no doubt whatever that subject will be discussed by the Joint Committee, but I think it is premature to anticipate what their decision will be.

Colonel YATE: This is a most important question. Can this Bill be altered after the Second Reading if the Joint Committee reports against diarchy?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Any Bill can, of course, be altered until its final stages.

Brigadier-General CROFT: In view of the importance to the whole of the British Empire of this matter can the right hon. Gentleman see his way not to discuss the Second Reading until the House meets again?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Oh, no. I do not think that would be possible or right. The date of the Second Reading has been fixed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Can there not be a reasoned Amendment?

Colonel YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us a pledge that the opinions of the provincial Governments in India will in no way be prejudiced by the Second Reading?

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: Is not the idea of setting up a Joint Select Committee in order that representatives of the provincial Governments may be heard as witnesses before the Select Committee?

Mr. BONAR LAW: Obviously the object of this mode of procedure is to enable the facts to be examined more thoroughly than by any other method that has been suggested.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL WAGES BOARD.

Mr. PRETYMAN: 58.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agri-
culture whether the Agricultural Wages Board has jurisdiction to fix special harvest wages in those districts where such special wages are customary?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The answer to my right hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANADIAN CATTLE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. CHARLES BARRIE: 61.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether, having in view the serious shortage of meat in the country, he can now remove the Canadian cattle import restrictions so as to increase the number of store cattle?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have nothing to add to the answers I gave to the questions addressed to me by the hon. Member for Dundee on the 15th of April last and the 2nd instant.

Mr. STURROCK: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an approximate date at which the embargo will be removed?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: No. I answered this question fully on the date I have mentioned.

Oral Answers to Questions — ESTATES SALES (LAND SPECULATORS).

Mr. HURD: 65.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of the growing discontent created in many agricultural districts by the operations of syndicates of speculators who are buying estates over the heads of sitting tenants and then seeking to resell farms to the occupiers at fictitious prices or dispossess those occupiers by breaking up the properties into higher-priced lots regardless of the claims of cottagers and smallholders; and what steps are being taken by the Board of Agriculture in the matter in the interests of good husbandry and extended cultivation?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: The Board are aware of the feeling of disturbance which is being caused in many parts of the country by the operations of land speculators, and if these operations are prejudicial to the proper cultivation of the land action will be taken under the Board's powers under the Defence of the Realm
Regulations. It may be necessary, however, to consider whether special legislation will not be necessary in order to deal with the matter.

Mr. HURD: Does the hon. Gentleman realise the urgency of this matter in many parts of the country?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, I am quite aware of it.

Mr. BILLING: Would the hon. Gentleman ask the Press to give publicity to this statement, as it would do a great deal more than anything else to stop speculators if they thought they were on a bad horse?

Mr. C. F. WHITE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been hundreds of cases in Derbyshire by a speculator of a syndicate who is Mr. Ernest T. Hooley, who is not unknown in the country?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I have heard a syndicate connected with this gentleman has been at work in Derbyshire.

Mr. WHITE: For many months.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES.

MILK.

Mr. LAMBERT: 66.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture if information has reached him that the slaughter of cows and of calves in the four Western Counties is such as to imperil the supply of milk in the future in these counties?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of FOOD (Mr. McCurdy): The information in the possession of the Food Controller is not such as to justify the fear expressed by the hon. Member.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask if the Board of Agriculture have received any information as to this subject, which is essentially a matter for them?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Yes, we have received a good deal of information, and if my hon. Friend will put another question down I will answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — KEW GARDENS (ADMISSION).

Lieut.-Colonel W. GUINNESS: 67.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the hardship caused to children living in the neighbourhood of Kew Gardens by the charge of 1d. for admission, he will restore the pre-war practice of allowing free admissions to the gardens on certain days of the week?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Arrangements are in force whereby school children accompanied by a responsible teacher are admitted to Kew Gardens at half-price. As long as the present fee for admission is maintained, the Board do not propose to depart from this arrangement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 68.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he can state what amount of surplus Government stores were sold from the date of the Armistice to the time of the setting up of the Disposal Board; and what quantity afterwards up to the present time?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Since the date of the Armistice stores to the value of £100,761,597 have been sold—£54,214,660 being stores on trading account and £46,546,937 surplus stores proper. Of the £54,214,660 on trading account £33,759,990 has been realised since the setting up of the Disposal Board on 11th January, and of the £46,546,937 on surplus stores proper £34.201,339 has been realised during the same period.

Captain BOWYER: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the appearance in the "Times" of 26th May of an advertisement by the Commissioners of His Majesty's Office of Works asking for tenders for the supply of 1,800 tons of corrugated iron, he will state whether inquiries were first made to find out whether the Minister of Munitions or any other Department had surplus stocks of corrugated iron on hand, what answers were received to those inquiries; and what length of time elapsed between the dispatch of the inquiries and the insertion of the advertisement referred to above?

Sir A. MOND: Inquiry was made of the Surplus Government Property Disposal Board, who stated that they had no such material of the gauge required. The reply to the last part of the question is three days.

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON TRAFFIC FACILITIES.

PASSENGER LORRIES.

Mr. HIGHAM: 69.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he will explain the details of the financial arrangement that has been come to between the Ministry of Munitions and the London General Omnibus Company in regard to the lorries to be used for passenger traffic in London?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The Disposal Board have sold to the London General Omnibus Company a number of Associated Equipment Company chassis and lorries at full market value. This transaction is purely a selling operation. In addition to these the Board of Trade are negotiating with the Disposal Board for a large number of lorries for the purpose of relieving the traffic congestion. The financial arrangements for the transfer of these have not been completed, but subject to the protection of the interests of the taxpayer, the Disposal Board will immediately place these lorries at the disposal of the Board of Trade which is carrying on the negotiations with the company.

Mr. BILLING: Can he say what market price—whether pre-war or present market price?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Oh, present market price, not pre-war.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: Is there any limitation on the fares that will be charged in the selling contract?

Mr. KELLAWAY: That does not arise out of this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMY STORAGE, CHILWELL, NOTTS.

Mr. BETTERTON: 70.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether it is the intention of the Government to acquire a further 127 acres, which are at present under cultivation, adjacent to the Chilwell shell-filling factory and to erect thereon sheds for the purpose of storing motor cars and other military stores; if so, what is the estimated cost of the scheme; whether the sitting tenants have already received notice to quit; and whether, in view of the accommodation already available, both at Chilwell and in other parts of the country, the agricul-
tural value of the land to be acquired, and the hardship to the persons to be dispossessed, he will, before proceeding further, refer the matter to a Committee of this House for a Report upon the scheme?

Captain GUEST: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to a question by my Noble Friend the Member for Nottingham (South) on Thursday last. No decision has yet been reached as regards the acquisition of additional land at Chilwell. Preliminary inquiries have been made as to cost. The tenants have not received notice to quit, and there is no immediate intention to dispossess the sitting tenants.

Oral Answers to Questions — SILVERTOWN EXPLOSION (COMPENSATION).

Mr. J. JONES: 71.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions if he can state the number of valuers who were engaged by the Ministry in connection with the valuation of propel claims arising out of the recent Silvertown explosion; and if he can state the amount paid in fees to such valuers?

Mr. KELLAWAY: The number of professional valuers engaged by the Ministry of Munitions in the assessment of property claims arising out of the Silvertown explosion is twenty-eight, and the amount paid in fees is £23,023.

Oral Answers to Questions — KENSINGTON GARDENS (GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS).

Sir H. CRAIK: 75.
asked the First Commissioner of Works if he is aware that a large part of Kensington Gardens is still closed to the public owing to the hutments and other erections placed there by the War Office, in the removal of which scarcely any progress has been made; that the public are deprived of the use of the gardens at the best season of the year while no public work of utility is being carried on there; and that sentinels are being employed in the work of guarding the gates; and whether he proposes to take any steps to secure the reopening of this part of Kensington Gardens?

Sir A. MOND: Since the hon. Member raised this question in Debate I have done my utmost to secure the removal of the buildings referred to, and have now re-
ceived an assurance from the military authorities that the demolition will be commenced in about ten days' time.

Sir H. CRAIK: Would it not be possible to get someone to remove these huts, which have prevented the public using the gardens at the very best part of the year, and which I am certain a few men could clear away in the course of a week? They have now been standing for about three months absolutely unoccupied.

Sir A. MOND: I have been trying to get them away. I understand the difficulty has not been the question of men but whether the huts were to be sold as they stood, or what was to be done with them. They will be removed in a few days' time

Sir H. CRAIK: Could he not attempt to use some disciplinary action against the obstinacy, the stupidity, the slackness, the carelessness of those who are responsible?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

LIGHTER-THAN-AIR SERVICE.

Captain W. BENN: 76.
asked the Under secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he can make a statement about the future organisation of the lighter- than-air branch of the Air Service?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Major-General Seely): Proposals to transfer the responsibility for airship construction from the Admiralty to the Air Ministry are now under discussion between the two Departments. I think it would be inadvisable to make any further announcement at present, but I will do so as soon as details have been arranged.

OBSOLESCENT AIRCRAFT (CONTRACTS).

Lieut.-Colonel MALONE: 77.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he will state what con tracts for obsolete or obsolescent aircraft remain uncancelled; and the date when it may be anticipated that these contracts will be concluded?

Mr. KELLAWAY: All contracts for obsolete and obsolescent aircraft are now concluded.

TARRANT TRIPLANE.

Captain ORMSBY-GORE: 78.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air
Ministry whether he will publish a Report on the causes and circumstances of the failure on trial of the Tarrant triplane at Farnborough, which resulted in the loss of the lives of two officers of the Air Force?

Major-General SEELY: The Tarrant triplane was built for military purposes to the order of the Government, and it-would not be in the interest of the public service for the results of a technical investigation into the causes of the accident to be published.

GENERAL SYKES' STAFF.

Mr. RAPER: 79.
asked the Under-Secretary of State to the Air Ministry if he will state what is the total amount of money per annum being allocated for the payment of General Sykes' staff; whether there are any restrictions as regards maximum salaries to be paid to his staff and, if so, what; and what are the exact terms under which the assistants in General Sykes' department are engaged so far as duration and termination of agreement are concerned?

Major-General SEELY: Proposals as to the staff required by General Sykes for his department have been laid before the Treasury, and until the Treasury decision has been received I am unable to answer the questions raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE DEMONSTRATION.

PRIME MINISTER'S MESSAGE.

Sir H. CRAIK: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether it is the case, as stated at the meeting in Hyde Park yesterday, that the Prime Minister sent a message expressing regret that he could not receive representatives of the Police Union and that he could do nothing further at present?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): No, Sir, it is not the case. The Prime Minister declined to take any action in the matter, but authorised the Leader of the House to make the statement that the Prime Minister had been kept fully informed of all the steps which had been taken by the Government, and that they had his entire approval.

Mr. BILLING: Is he aware that the Secretary to the Prime Minister, speaking on the telephone from Downing Street to myself, repeated that statement substantially as stated, and that I communicated it to the leader of the union?

Mr. SHORTT: No, I am not aware of it, but it is wholly incorrect. The only answer given to the hon. Member was that the Prime Minister had nothing to add.

Mr. BILLING: Is he also aware that, owing to the reasonableness of that answer, no strike took place? [HON. MEMBERS: No, no!"]

Mr. SHORTT: No, I am certainly not aware of that.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPRISONMENT OF A MEMBER.

Mr. SPEAKER: informed the House that he had received the following letter relating to the imprisonment of a Member:

"General Headquarters, Ireland,

Parkgate, Dublin,

30th May, 1919.

Sir,

With reference to my letters of 6th March, 1919, and 6th May, 1919, I have the honour to report that Mr. Pierce Beasley, M.P. for East Kerry, was tried by general court-martial at Dublin on 12th May, 1919, and was sentenced to two years' imprisonment without hard labour, for the following offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations:

Under Regulation 42, for making a speech calculated to cause sedition; and
Under Regulations 48 and 27, for having in his possession documents indicating pre paration for injuring railways and telegraph wires, and documents containing instructions for injuring railway locomotives, and for training men in the use of the rifle.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

F. SHAW,

Lieutenant-General,

Commanding-in-Chief, Ireland.

The Right Hon. The Speaker,

House of Commons,

London, S. W. 1."

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted at this day's Sitting from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Llanelly Rural District Water Bill,

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP B).

CAPTAIN STARKEY reported from the Committee on Group B of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday, 1st July, at Eleven of the clock.

Report to lie upon the Table.

TRADE DISPUTES (No. 2) BILL.

Second Reading To-morrow.

STANDING COMMITTEE C (SUPPLY).

Mr. MACMASTER reported from Standing Committee C that they had agreed to the following Resolutions: —

CIVIL SERVICES ESTIMATES, 1919–20 (CLASS II.).

(1)" That a sum, not exceeding £28,632, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the House of Lords.

(2)That a sum, not exceeding £231,774, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum- necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930. for the Salaries and Expenses of the House of Commons.

(3)That a sum, not exceeding £19,845, be granted to His Majesty, to come the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the War Cabinet.

(4)That a sum, not exceeding £107,519, be granted to His Majesty, to complete he sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and other Expenses in the Department of His Majesty's Treasury and Subordinate Departments, including Expenses in respect of Ad vances under the Light Railways Act, 1896.

(5)That a sum, not exceeding £10,777 (including a Supplementary sum of £3,000),be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of His Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council.

(6)That a sum, not exceeding £55,000, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for a Grant to the Interim Forestry Authority.

(7)That a sum, not exceeding £19,619, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, l920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Charity Commission for England and Wales.

(8)That a sum, not exceeding £20,825, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Government Chemist.

(9)That a sum, not exceeding £29,059, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Civil Service Commission.

(10)That a sum, not exceeding £1,282, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Conciliation and Arbitration Board for Government Employés.

(11)That a sum, not exceeding £63,030, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Department of the Comptroller and Auditor-General.

(12)That a sum, not exceeding £19,074, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Registry of Friendly Societies."

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE A.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Marriott; and had appointed in substitution: Captain Douglas Hall.

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee C: Sir Robert Home; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Bridgeman.

STANDING COMMITTEE D.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee D: Lieut.-Colonel Allen; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Housing of the Working Classes (Ireland) Bill): Mr. Archdale.

STANDING COMMITTEE E.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee E: Mr. Adamson, Mr. Alfred Davies (Clitheroe), Sir Fortescue Flannery, Mr. Griffiths, Mr. John Jones, Mr. Neil M'Lean, Major Nail, Sir John Randles, Mr. Swan, and Mr. Wignall.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had added to Standing Committee E the following Eleven Members in respect of the Compensation for Subsidence Bill: Mr. Adamson, Colonel Burdon, Sir Clifford Cory, Mr. Charles Edwards, Sir Hamar Greenwood, Sir John Harmood-Banner, Brigadier-General Hickman, Major Morrison-Bell, Mr. Stanton, Brigadier-General Surtees, and Mr. Stephen Walsh.

STANDING COMMITTEE B.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Sir J. D. Rees; and had appointed in substitution (for the consideration of the Electricity (Supply) Bill); Major Baird.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

SELECTION.

Leave given to the Committee to make a Special Report.

Special Report brought up, and read:—

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS reported from the Committee of Selection:
That they had agreed to the following Special Report: 'That, in view of the fact that the attendance of Ministers is often required on the Standing Committee which considers Estimates, and that it is not practicable for the Committee of Selection to make such provision as would facilitate their attendance, consideration be given to the expediency of enabling the Committee of Selection to appoint all Ministers who are Members of this House as ex-officio Members of the Standing Committee to which Estimates may be referred, without the power
of voting except when Estimates affecting their respective Departments are under consideration.'

Report to lie upon the Table.

LAND VALUES ASSESSMENT AND RATING BILL.

Order for Second Reading this day read, and discharged. Bill withdrawn.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS.

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

Orders of the Day — CHANCELLOR OF EXCHEQUER'S STATEMENT.

WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES.

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That the Treasury may,—

(1) borrow, in such manner as they may think fit, on the security of the Consolidated Fund (in addition to any other sums which they are entitled to borrow),—
(a) any sums required for raising the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending the 31st day of March, nineteen hundred and twenty, up to an amount not exceeding two hundred and fifty million pounds; and
(b) any sums required for repayment of any maturing securities issued under the War Loan Acts, 1914 to 1918, or of any Treasury Bills or of any Ways and Means advances; and
(2) create securities to be issued to the holders of any securities issued under those Acts, in exchange for those securities; and
(3) in connection with any borrowing or creation of securities in pursuance of this Resolution—
(a) charge on the Consolidated Fund the principal and interest of any securities created in pursuance of this Resolution and any expenses incurred in respect of any such borrowing or exehange of securities; and
(b) charge on the Consolidated Fund such sums as may be required for the purposes of any sinking funds established for the redemption of securities created in pursuance of this Resolution; and
(c) charge on the Consolidated Fund any additional remuneration to the Bank of England or the Bank of Ireland in respect of any sums raised or securities created in pursuance of this Resolution."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): The Resolution which you have read from the Chair is intended as the basis for a Bill authorising fresh borrowing operations by the Treasury. In making the Motion, I cause no surprise to the Committee, and, indeed, I think, no surprise was caused in any quarter when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave notice for Ways and Means Committee to-day. Neither have I any revelations to make to the Committee to-day. The Resolution authorises the Treasury in general terms to borrow any
sums required for raising the Supply of the year up to a limit of £250,000,000, any sums required for repayment of any maturing securities issued under the War Loans Acts, 1914 to 1918, or any Treasury Bills or Ways and Means advances. It further authorises a State security to be issued to the holders of any securities issued under those Acts in exchange for such securities, and to charge on the Consolidated Fund the principal and interest of any securities created in pursuance of the Resolution, and any sums required for Sinking Fund for the redemption of securities so issued in pursuance of the Resolution. I do not think I need dwell on the precedents—there are plenty of them—for a Resolution in these general terms, followed, sometimes immediately, by the issue of a prospectus of a new loan, and sometimes only at a considerable interval.
The reasons for contemplating such an issue now are well within the knowledge of the House. I stated, in opening the Budget, that I estimated the deficit of the year at a little over £230,000,000, or £250,000,000, as I took it at a round figure, and to leave a little margin for contingencies. If that were all I had to deal with, I should have no particular occasion for concern. It is true that the bonds which were, being issued up to Saturday last have not yielded the large weekly total to which we were accustomed under the earlier issue, but they would have provided, or very nearly provided, all that would have been required during the year. But that deficit is not the serious feature of the situation. The serious feature is the immense floating, debt, the great quantity of short-dated securities which we have to meet. I have provided myself with figures up to 31st May, and the House may perhaps like to have them as being later, I think, than any that have been published. They include Ways and Means advances £457,892,000, Treasury Bills to the amount of £1,036,131,000, Exchequer Bonds maturing within this financial year to the amount of £245,000,000, if I include in that figure an amount of £66,000,000 of 1922 Bonds, the holders of which have an option of repayment in the course of a year. That is exclusive of Miscellaneous Foreign Debt falling due this year, amounting approximately to £98,000,000. The House will see how large these figures are. If you cast your eyes a little further ahead, you will find
that, in addition to these securities maturing during the current year, there is no less than £1,008,000,000 maturing in the period from 1st April, 1920, to 31st March, 1924, and a further £91,000,000 of Foreign Debt.
Under those circumstances, the Committee will readily understand that I have, from the beginning of my tenure of office, seriously considered the desirability of a funding operation. I do not need hero to dwell upon the importance of funding as much as we can of this large floating debt. I venture just to say a few words about it, because the importance, appreciated here, and appreciated in the City of London and in financial and business circles, where these matters are studied, may be less apparent to the average citizen. Such a vast amount of short-dated securities spread an atmosphere of insecurity over the business world, and is an undoubted obstacle to the revival of trade and industry as we all wish to see it revived. But it is more than that. It prevents our restricting the continued issue of currency notes, or doing anything to reduce the inflation of the currency, and it prevents our taking any steps to stabilise our foreign exchange. Accordingly, it is not merely financial interests, it is not merely the Treasury, that are concerned. It is each and every parson of this realm who has an interest in the prosperity and well-being of the country, and the need for support to this Loan, whenever it is issued, is as great and the claim on the patriotism of the citizen is as strong, as were that need and those claims during the progress of active operations.
4.0 P.M
Indeed, if I am to be criticised at all, I think it would be for not having undertaken this operation at an earlier stage. Many people have expected it earlier. Some have expressed surprise that I have not undertaken it earlier. I say frankly that I hoped that the progress of affairs in Paris would be Such that the preliminaries of peace would have been signed before now, and that I might make my issue after the signature of the preliminaries of peace. But we are close upon the Whitsuntide holidays. There is a, very limited time between the resumption of business after the Whitsuntide holiday and the general summer holidays of the community, and I think it will be clear to everyone that the choice before us
is either to make this issue at a very early date or to postpone it altogether till the autumn. It is under these circumstances that I ask the Committee to pass this Resolution before the House adjourns for its own Whitsuntide Recess, and I say at once that, as has been indicated by my action in ceasing the issue of Treasury Bills and stopping the issue of the Bonds, it is my intention to make the issue almost immediately after the House rises for the Whitsuntide Recess. I do not bind myself; I must reserve my liberty till the last moment; but that is my intention. The terms of the Loan will, of course, be set forth in the Prospectus, whenever it is issued. This Resolution embodies no terms. In that it is in accordance with precedent. The terms themselves will need much closer definition in the Bill which it will be my duty later to present to the House. I have come to the conclusion that in the choice, as I have said, between making a very early issue and postponing it till the autumn, unless wholly unforeseen circumstances arise, I ought to choose the earlier date. I think it is bad for everyone that the uncertainty should continue longer than is necessary, and, if the issue is made, at least one element of uncertainty is removed. If the preliminaries of peace be already signed by that time, or if they be signed during the time when the lists are open, so much the better. It would go forward with assured confidence. If they are not signed, there will be so much the more reason why we should do everything that we can to strengthen our financial position and be prepared for all emergencies. If the prospects which I held out in the Budget statement are realised, then, of the Loan which will be issued in pursuance of this Resolution, only some £250,000,000 will be required to meet new expenditure, and the whole of the rest of the proceeds will be available for the funding of floating debt. That is an operation which everyone conversant with the facts must desire to see succeed, and I hope that investors will make ready for the opportunity which will be afforded to them, and that those who have received their due dividends will keep them for reinvestment in Government securities. I take the opportunity of saying that, thanks to the sacrifices which my predecessors have asked the country to make, and which it has made, during the War, thanks to the ready response with which previous Loans have met, we stand to-day in a position unrivalled among the belligerents who entered
the War at the commencement. As we reap, in our situation to-day, the reward of past sacrifices and past efforts, so I hope the country will be encouraged to make another great effort, not this time to put us in funds for the waging of long campaigns, but to lead us forward along the paths of reconstruction and peace and along the path of financial stability and security.

Sir DONALD MACLEAN: With regard to the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of course, it is perfectly obvious that he cannot give us the terms now. The terms can only be disclosed when the Prospectus is issued. As to the difficulties which he has met with in regard to the choice of the time of issue, I think the Committee will syspathise with him, and will approve of the action which he has taken in seeking the necessary powers now. So far as any Member of this House or any citizen is concerned, criticisms at the present stage should only be directed to the curing of faults and to assisting the Treasury to get the nation on to a sound financial basis. There are just three points which I should like briefly to make. I suppose that no one would really wish to attempt to fund a debt when you have to go on borrowing. That is, of course, rather a counsel of perfection, because, so far as one can see, that has been partly done in what has happened in previous Loans.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: You mean a Sinking Fund?

Sir D. MACLEAN: No, seeking to fund the Debt. If you want to borrow at the same time beyond what you have to deal with, you really come into the open market rather in competition with others who are trying to get money to carry on their own businesses. But let that pass. Another point on which I think we are all substantially agreed is the danger of stereotyping the interest at too high a rate. High prices and high wages, of course, necessitate a high rate of interest, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will not make his Loan too long a loan. Let us hope, for the sake of the financial future of the country, that prices will go down. If prices fall, wages will no doubt correspond. After all, what the workers want is real wages and not paper wages. The position then will be that if you are left with a lower wage and lower prices, and,
for a Government security, a very high rate of interest—I do not know what it is going to be——

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: We had better not say.

Sir D. MACLEAN: At any rate we are quite safe in saying somewhere about 5 per cent., because that is what has happened in the past, and there is not much likelihood of doing very much better in the immediate future. If that is so, with a very long Loan, you will be left with the charge that the Loan must go to the large property-owning classes—I mean those who have the money—and we shall be face to face with this great Government security carrying a high rate of interest, and at the same time with a dropping of wages and a lowering of prices. That is a state of things to which we shall be inevitably bound up if we have too long a Loan. I would respectfully urge upon the right hon. Gentleman that in the Loan which he is about to issue he should keep it as short as he reasonably can, in view of the arguments which I have just addressed to him. Of course he is face to face with very considerable difficulties as to getting his money. Some of the very best securities, in order to get money for their preference stock, have to offer to-day something like 6½or 7 per cent. He is faced with difficulties in which he has our very great sympathy, and it is our duty to do what we can individually, and at the same time everybody ought to urge the whole nation to back this Loan to the full extent of its capacity. After all, the British Government is still the finest security in the world. In no carping spirit I would say that I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would get a much better response to his applications if he could only face the country backed by the fact that the Government itself was run on business lines, that Government extravagances were cut down, that no unnecessary payments were being made. Government Departments should be cut down to all possible limits of reasonable expenditure, and if that were the case—unfortunately it is not the case yet—how much more willingly should we find the public backing him and putting their money into a concern which is certainly their own, but which at the same time is at present overloaded by unnecessary extravagance, and by uncontrolled expenditure. As far as this Committee and the country as a whole is concerned, I believe that, in spite of all difficulties, there will
be a generous and patriotic response to the appeal which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made to-day.

Sir F. BANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down was quite correct when he said that the response to the Loan will probably be greater if the people who can subscribe are certain that economy is going to be practised by the Government. There would be the greater reason to subscribe, because if economy were practised there would probably be no more Loans in future. Having had some experience in the issuing of loans in my younger days, I am quite aware that if potential subscribers think the Loan in hand is to be the last one they will subscribe to it with more eagerness than they would subscribe if they thought that there were to be other Loans. The remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, too, portrayed the situation that I think is probably very present to the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am not quite so certain that it is present to the minds of the other members of the Government, who, I see, with one exception, have deserted the Front Bench. I do not venture to offer any criticism upon the Resolution put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has brought it in. It is absolutely necessary that the Debt should be funded as soon as possible. If, however, I might venture to criticise the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I would point out to him that there is a difference between funding a debt and paying it off by means of a sinking fund. What was in the right hon. Gentleman's mind was what took place in the days of Pitt, when Pitt objected to borrow with the one hand and pay off debts with the other—not the funding of the debt, which is a totally different thing.
The enormous amount of floating debt—I think I am right in saying over £1,000,000,000—is, I must say, really a danger to the business of the country. Large sums of money which have to be renewed from month to month prevent the floating balances being employed in trade. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said he hoped the interest would not be too high or the date of issue too long. He thought that matters were probably undergoing, or would undergo, a change, and that money was going to be easier. That is a matter for speculation. I really do not know whether it would be so or not. I am, however, quite certain of one thing—so
long as Income Tax and Super-tax amount to 10s. in the £ you are not going to get money at very low rates. As to the rate of interest I am not going to say a word, but take a loan which normally returns 5 per cent. and consider the people who are likely to make a success of the Loan. What may happen in the future nobody can say, but no one is more desirous than I am that subscribers should be plentiful and that many small amounts should be subscribed. Small subscribers really make the backing of any loan. They do not come in it at the first, or did not in the days when I was in the City. To begin with, a loan was always taken up by large, holders. If Super-tax and Income Tax amount to 10s. in the £ large investors get 2½ per cent. Therefore, if you are going to be able in future to borrow at the lower rate, you have to do two things: First, curtail expenditure; and, next, reduce the Income Tax and Super-tax.
Do not let us hear anything more about a levy on capital. You also want economy. I am glad my right hon. Friend has brought in this Resolution, which I have no desire to criticise, but I would like to ask one question. It is a little difficult to follow any Resolution read over from the Chair, or as my right hon. Friend read it, but there were words in it which I could not quite understand. The first part authorises, the issue of a Loan of £ 250,000,000, required to meet the current expenditure of the year. The second part authorises the issue of an unknown sum of money to be given in exchange for debt now payable. That does not, I presume, mean that the public cannot subscribe?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The object, first of all, is to raise the sum of £ 250,000,000 for the Supply services for the year; then any sums required for the repayment of any maturing securities; and, thirdly, to create securities to be issued to holders of any securities issued under these Acts in exchange for their securities—that is the right of conversion.

Sir F. BANBURY: I was a little bit afraid of how the matter stood. We will say, for the sake of argument, that the right hon. Gentleman issued a Loan for £ 250,000,000 for the service of the year. There are £1,000,000,000 of Treasury Bills. Does that mean that the thousand millions are to be offered—the whole of the Treasury Bills—or will the public be able to come in and subscribe at the same time?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot imagine that the right hon. Baronet could ever have any doubt about the matter——

Sir F. BANBURY: It is not clear!

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: ——any doubt whatever about it! The public not only can come in, but it is urgently necessary that they should come in.

Sir F. BANBURY: I quite agree it is absolutely necessary.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The object is to get the floating debt into the hands of real investors.

Sir F. BANBURY: I can quite understand that.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The people who hold cither Treasury Bills or any existing Government securities will be welcome.

Sir C. HENRY: Will any portion of this Loan be earmarked for any special purpose?

Sir F. BANBURY: That is the whole point I quite understand the position, but I was afraid, while hearing the Resolution read, that part of it might be earmarked for a particular purpose.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No.

Sir F. BANBURY: If that were so in the Resolution I think it would be a mistake, and in order to avoid any misunderstanding I asked the question. So long as that is not so, I have nothing further to say, except to congratulate my right hon. Friend and to wish him every success.

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot allow this Resolution to pass without expressing upon it in a sentence or two the feeling of hon. Members with whom I act. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Banbury) has expressed the hope that we shall hear no more about Loans. I am quite certain the look forward to some immediate future when we could be confident of hearing no more about loans. I am quite certain the right hon. Baronet will hear a great deal more, and so will the Government before very long, on the question of a capital levy. I can agree with the closing observations of my right hon. Friend beside me (Sir D. Maclean) and I hope that as evidently this Loan is to be issued there will be a national and whole-hearted response. I trust that as this step is a step which the Government is bent upon taking, it will, for its purpose, be a com-
plete success. I agree also with what my right hon. Friend said on the point of interest. Having so agreed I cannot let the occasion pass without expressing the view of the members of the Labour party that this policy of borrowing is a ruinous policy, distinctly harmful to the nation's interest, and mistaken; and in despite of the fact that there has been an enormous-addition to the total sum of private wealth during the period of the War. That addition is the justification of the Government in calling upon the people of this generation who have such means to enable them to make even greater sacrifice— without seriously feeling the burden of any financial sacrifice which the Government could justly call upon them to make. So far we have no great monument to the memory of those who have fallen. We are piling up debt which will be for, at any rate, a very long time a reminder to those who are having their burdens increased of the policy being pursued.
Debt is not a monument in which any Government should take pride. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the policy at this moment is doubly unwise by reason of its effect upon the minds of a very large number of people who have no means to lend anything, and who are now compelled to borrow, and, indeed, compelled almost to beg the Government to give them something each week to keep them alive. This is a large population in a state of impoverishment. As is known they are manifesting their unrest in the forms in which they have done. I do not quite share those forms, but I really think we are entitled to warn the Government upon making an appeal to a considerable-number of well-to-do people again to lend largely and generously on terms that will be very remunerative to them, and which will bring substantial profit in the way of interest, at the time when there are such a large number of people who are very seriously discontented at the position in which they find themselves and the prospect before them. Without pursuing this point—I regard this as not the occasion for a general debate—I could not allow the occasion to pass or the Resolution to be adopted without entering a protest on behalf of the Labour party against the policy which the Government is not entitled to continue in view of the ever-increasing wealth of certain sections of the community. These can justly be called upon in this their generation to
make financial sacrifices to extricate the Government from the difficulties of the debt in which the country is involved.

Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY: In a very few sentences my right hon. Friend who has just sat down has succeeded in raising one of the largest, broadest, and deepest questions which can be raised in connection with finance. The right hon. Gentleman said that the House and the country will hear a great deal more about the question of a levy on capital. He supported his argument in favour of that levy on capital, as compared with borrowing, by suggesting that there was one class of persons who would lend and another class of poor persons who could not lend, and that these latter were borrowing weekly to sustain their lives. I cannot help thinking— and my right hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so, as I do not wish to be offensive—that he has not very seriously or profoundly studied the question of finance. How could the borrowing of these persons who are unemployed be met if it were not that the Government, with the credit of the whole country, obtain the money from those who have it, in order, amongst other duties, to furnish the means of subsistence to those who have not at this moment got them? There is a profound misunderstanding of this suggestion of a levy on capital. What does it mean? I can understand my right hon. Friend going to a meeting of the Labour party and from the platform denouncing the capitalist and saying that some of his capital should be taken away from him. I imagine I can hear the echo of the cheers that would respond to such a declaration; but capital is only in existence if it produces revenue. An empty house is no longer anything more than bricks and mortar if it is not tenanted and does not produce rent. Therefore, when you make a levy by Income Tax and Super-tax upon income, you are doing the very equivalent to making a levy upon capital, except that you do not destroy it. You do not pull down the empty house, but let it stand, in the hope that some day it may be again productive.
My right hon. Friend stated that those who responded to this appeal would have a high and remunerative rate of interest, but what does that amount to? Any man who has a large income coming from investments has to pay 6s. in the £ Income Tax, and occasionally there are other circumstances which quite make up a 10s. In-
come Tax altogether. Is that not a levy on capital? Does it not mean for the lifetime, probably, of the present generation that the capital which men have saved and obtained by enterprise, manufacturing skill or ability, as well as that which they have inherited, is to be reduced by one-half, because one-half goes to the State? I have gone away a little from the Resolution, because I felt my right hon. Friend would not be angry for putting in plain language the views that one holds who has closely studied this question. I want to say how thoroughly I support the policy and how thoroughly I believe in the policy of funding the floating debt. I believe we have something like £1,700,000,000 altogether more or less floating, including Treasury Bills and the other items which have been referred to, and they are more or less in a state of flux and hanging, like the sword of Damocles, over the heads of the persons who desire to show enterprise in new investments. The larger portion of that sum which is funded and removed from the immediate necessity of payment by the State the better for the stability of the Money Market, for enterprise, and the better for restoring our trade, which has been so interrupted by the War. I feel certain that the patriotic person who realises the necessity for assisting the best investment the world has produced will believe also that they are acting patriotically us well as in their own interest.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) spoke about the high rate of interest. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks up the history of this question he will find that there was a controversy as to the necessary rate of interest before the issue of the main War Loan, and he will remember that there was a very definite opinion expressed by certain high authorities in the City in favour of a comparatively high rate of interest, but there was also another opinion in the City against the making of a high rate of interest, and that prevailed, with the result that the public came in not only from patriotic grounds, but because the great object of wise investors is security rather than a high rate of interest. I think the security of the British Government and the British nation is still so well established that no high rate of interest is necessary or will be necessary. I have purposely avoided going into the figures, but I urge upon my right hon. Friend that if he has any doubt in the balance of his mind as to a high rate of
interest on the one hand and an attractive security on the other hand, let the right hon. Gentleman take his courage in both hands and decide that the high rate of interest will be less attractive to the bulk of investors than the consideration that they are lending money pariotically with the best State security they can obtain in the world. I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the lucid speech which he made in moving this Resolution, which I hope may be made as widely public as possible, because if that is done I believe it will have the effect which he desires, and which is so necessary for the future of the country.

Mr. ACLAND: I take exception to the point recently made by the right hon. Gentleman that the position of the country was too serious or a suggestion that the Loan contemplated. will be an. opportunity for the very rich men to make a high rate of interest. I think the figures given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the large amount of our unfunded debt are so serious that it would be better we should all realise that to provide adequately for the Loan he will issue will require the savings, maybe the sacrifices, and certainly the subscriptions of all classes in as large and abundant a manner as they can possibly give him. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises that the more persons with limited means can subscribe the better. The right hon. Gentleman regards this as a patriotic duty as much as any of the efforts which preceded it during the War, and it is regarded, not as the rich man's chance, but as the duty of everybody who has an interest in the country. I am not going to be tempted into reopening the question of the capital levy. I would. suggest to the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London that he might offer a reward, say, of about £5, for a policy which at the same time would avoid anything in the nature of a capital levy, and also do what he and all of us I would so much like to be done, namely, to secure a very large reduction of the Income Tax and the Super-tax at the same time. It is no use believing that there is any real short cut to some policy of providing the large extra amounts which will have to be found, because there is a practical certainty of the continuance of the Income Tax and Super-tax for a great many years at a very high rate.
I want to end with one simple question. The Chancellor of the Exchequer asks for new money, in addition to the money he wants from the permanent investor,. to replace the unfunded debt of £250,000,000. Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen any cause for increasing his Estimate of £250,000,000, which, he said, allowed a certain latitude and margin? We cannot avoid the necessity of this £250,000,000 this year, but I think it would be a reassurance to the country if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would confirm that figure after having gone through another month or two. I would like him now to say if he still anticipates that that will be the limit of the total new money he thinks it will be necessary to raise in the year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is certainly my hope, and I see no reason at present to alter the Estimate I have made.

Mr. ACLAND: That is reassuring. I had in mind what was stated in the Budget statement when the right hon. Gentleman said certain Estimates had increased since his Estimates were framed, and therefore I am pleased to hear that he has now no cause to think that there will be any alteration in his Estimate.

Sir P. PILDITCH: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London said that there would be no earmarking of any part of tins Loan for any specific purpose. I suppose that does not preclude the arrangement that all forms of Government Loans shall have a right to conversion if they wish it. I do not gather from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement whether the actual right of conversion would be conceded to all the holders of Government Loans created during the War?

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: I wish to urge the right hon. Gentleman to avoid a long-dated Loan. By that means he will attain security and avoid the Government coming on to the Money Market year by year in the future. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer borrows money for a long period of time, it will tend to standardise the present high rate of interest and the high prices prevalent throughout the country to-day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter has one of the gravest decisions to take. If he fixes a short-dated Loan, or a Loan at a low rate
of interest, he may not secure the money he requires, but if he maintains the rate at a high level he will standardise the present high rate for many years. The result in all former wars has been that after a period of time the rate of interest has fallen, and the Government have been able to borrow money five years afterwards at a much lower rate of interest. Therefore, I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to avoid long-dated Loans, because money to-day is in great demand, and he will have to pay a high rate of interest, and that will tend to check the upward rise in prices. The rise in prices is dependent upon the rate of interest and the Government security being the best in the world. Other countries will require to pay 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. higher than the British Government. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take some risks in this matter. Let him fix the rate of interest as low as possible, and by that means endeavour to serve the interests of the industrial position of this country, and at the same time lower the level of prices which press severely upon the working classes to-day.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not propose to sketch the prospectus to the House now; I rise only to answer the question put to me by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir P. Pilditch). In endeavouring to assure him that I was not going in any Loan that I might issue to. exclude new subscribers, I appear to have conveyed to him the idea that I am not going to honour the obligation to allow conversions in respect of certain previous Loans raised for certain war purposes. The hon. Gentleman put his question in a form which covered Loans more than those that have that right of conversion. My answer would be that all promises will be fulfilled in the spirit in which they were made, but I am not bound to offer rights of conversion to anybody else.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move,
That the Treasury may arrange for giving an option to the holders of any War Saving Certificates to extend the currency of those Securities.
As I shall, at a later stage, have to bring in a Bill for the purpose of the Loan, I think it would be an advantage to take Parliamentary authority in that Bill for a
concession to the holders of War Saving Certificates. The Committee is aware that the maximum duration of a War Saving Certificate is now five years, subject to this one extension, that if anybody holds more than one certificate he may continue to hold the earlier certificates till the date on which the last one expires. A Committee was appointed in June, 1917, to consider the facilities for small investors after the War. They recommended that the existing holders of certificates, while retaining, of course, their option of cashing such certificates at 20s. on maturity at the end of their five years, might leave the certificate with the State for a further period of five years, if they so desired. During those five years the certificate would increase in value at the rate of 1d. per month until the end of the period, when a bonus of Is. would be added. Thus the value of the certificate purchased at 15s. 6d. would be 20s. at the end of the first five years, and, if the holder of it then liked to keep it for another five years, it would be 26s. at the end of the ten years. During the whole of the period it would, of course, be cashed at any time, as the certificates can now be cashed. The additional accumulated interest bringing the total value up to 26s. would remain exempt from Income Tax. The intention to do this was publicly announced on the authority of the Treasury, with the statement that arrangements would be made to give effect to it at an early opportunity. I am informed that those who hold these certificates, or at least many of them, would like to have the earliest Parliamentary sanction to the promise which the Treasury then made. I am certain that the Committee will approve the purpose of the Resolution, and I anticipate that it will pass it without any hesitation.

The CHAIRMAN: I have had some little doubt whether this is really a matter for the Loan Bill or for the Finance Bill, but I do" not think that there is very much in the point as it does to some extent deal with funding, and, therefore, it might as well go into the Loan Bill rather than into the Finance Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — RESTORATION OF PRE-WAR PRACTICES (No. 3) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir R. Home): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
This Bill is designed to ensure to the trade unions of the country the right to have restored certain trade union customs and practices which they gave up during the War in order to bring about the preatest possible production of war material. But for the increased output thus obtained, we should certainly have suffered the loss of a great many more precious lives, and, without it, it would, I am certain, in the view of all of us, have been impossible to achieve the victory which we ultimately obtained. These prewar practices, however, were surrendered in exchange for a pledge, given by statesmen of every party and repeated from time to time, that when the War ceased they should be restored. Towards the end of 1914 it was realised that the output of munitions of war had to be greatly expedited and increased. Overtures were made by employers to their employés from time to time, and towards the beginning of 1915 certain arrangements were in process of being made. It was discovered that there were many practices in existence which tended to impede the output of the munitions which were required. I need only mention, without going into any details, the regulations which existed with regard to overtime, night duty, and Sunday work. There were also restrictions relating to the kind of processes upon which particular people could be engaged, the employment of women and boys, the amount of output that could be anticipated from any particular machine, the class of labour which might be allowed to operate the particular machines, lines of demarcation between one trade and another, and other similar restrictions
It was sought to get rid of these restrictions for the time, in order that there should be no impediment to the production of the material which was so urgently required. There was a Shell and Fuses agreement entered into between the Engineering Federation and engineering employés early in 1915 which to some extent provided for the relaxation of such restrictions, on condition, which was clearly understood, that the restrictions were only suspended for the period of the
War. Then, on 17th March, 1915, there was a famous meeting held at the Treasury, from which there subsequently emerged what has become to be known as the Treasury Agreement. Practically all the great trade unions of the country, with the exception, I think, of the Coal Miners' Federation and the National Union of Railways, were parties to this agreement, and the present Prime Minister on that occasion made a very important speech in which he very clearly announced that whatever relaxation was made was only to be regarded as enduring for the period of the War. It is worth while, perhaps, quoting the precise terms of what was said at that time, in order to make the matter perfectly clear:
The men agree to relax the practices in question and to recommend to all unions to do so, on the condition that the Government should require all contractors and sub-contractors engaged on munitions and equipment of war, and on other work required for the satisfactory completion of the War, to give an undertaking to the following effect, namely, 'any departure during the War from the practices in our workshops, shipyards, and other industries prior to the War shall only be for the period of the War.' 
In July, 1915, there was passed a Munitions of War Act, under which it was made obligatory upon the trade unions to put no impediment in the way of the production of war material, but it was also made perfectly clear in that Statute that any departure from trade union customs was only to be regarded as enduring for the War, and that it should be incumbent upon employers to keep a record of every practice from which there was a departure. On the faith of these arrangements, there were innumerable cases of departure from pre-war customs.
5.0 P.M.
I have had the curiosity to look through some of the records, and, although I do not pretend we have anything like a complete list, I find there are records of something between 30,000 and 40,000 cases of departure from pre-war customs. Seventy-five per cent. of these relate to cases in which women have been allowed to work on machines on which previously men alone were employed, and to other departures, such, for instance, as lines of demarcation being broken down, and boys being permitted to do work hitherto done by men, as well as piece rates being used instead of time rates. There are many other instances which might be given. All this was done for the purpose of getting the production which was required. It
may be said on the part of some that there was no particular sacrifice made by the trade unionists in regard to this matter. But I would remind the House that the merit of the sacrific is not exactly measured by its results. It is measured rather by what the person who is making the sacrifice regards himself as giving up. Whatever view may be held with regard to the merit or demerit, in industry, of the practices to which I have referred, they were the evidences of controversies which have taken place between employers and employed over a long stretch of years, and they were the records of the defence which men had made of their rights, and of the regulations which they at least believed safeguarded their position in industry.
When the Armistice came a meeting was held at Caxton Hall, which was addressed by the Prime Minister and by the Foreign Secretary, and there the pledge so often given during the War was reiterated in the most explicit and clear terms. It was to the effect that the practices which had thus been given up by the trade unions during the War, in order to bring their country to victory, should, now that the Armistice had arrived, be restored as soon as possible. As a result of that meeting a committee of employers was set up, together with a committee of employés, to arrange the terms of the Bill by which this might be achieved.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: May I interrupt the right hon. Gentleman for a moment? There is one point I do not quite understand. I entirely agree as to the necessity for restoring these powers, but as they did not rest before the War on statutory legislation, why restore them now by Bill?

Sir R. HORNE: For this reason, that the Government put itself in the position of pledging that these practices should be restored, and the only way in which it can compel restoration is by Act of Parliament. If you are to leave it to private arrangement you might have a repetition of those controversies which have raged over the last half-century, and that is not a matter which anybody could contemplate with equanimity. The Government gave a pledge, and it must fulfil its pledge. In point of fact, the employers have recognised this obligation just as clearly as the employés, and while it looks as if a considerable time has elapsed since the month of November, that time has not been badly spent. I have observed criticisms in the
newspapers alleging delay on the part of the Government in this matter. But our great desire has been to bring about a situation in which employers and employed could see eye-to-eye, and I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Bill which I am asking it to give a Second Reading to to-day has been agreed to by the committees of both the employers and the workmen. I will briefly tell the House what the proposals of the Bill are.
The Bill provides that all pre-war customs which were given up during the War, and in connection with the purposes of the War, shall be restored by every employer throughout the country within two months of the passing of the Act. There are, of course, establishments which have only been set up since the beginning of the War and provision is made that these also shall set up or establish the prewar customs, such as apply in similar establishments in their vicinity. Any person who fails to comply with that provision shall, it is provided, be guilty of an offence against the Statute and the penalty which he will have to pay is a fine of £25 for each day during which he is failing to restore the practice. But ha cannot be convicted of an offence unless the person who complains has first given him a week's notice of the particular practice which it is desired to have restored, and, if it is not one which is recorded, specifying also any agreement in which the arrangement was made for the abrogation temporarily of the practice. Any proceedings which are necessary are to be taken before the local munitions tribunal, which is a very convenient Court for the present. It has done admirable service during the War. For the purposes of this Act it will be necessary that the munitions tribunals should be continued, and that the jurisdiction in connection with them should be given now to the Ministry of Labour instead of to the Ministry of Munitions. The Act will apply, when passed, to all establishments which were engaged in making war material and to those in which anything was being made where the practice was departed from in consequence of Treasury agreement, and also to all Government establishments. These, very shortly, are the provisions of the proposed measure, and the fact that the committees of employers and employed see eye-to-eye in the matter should, I imagine, make my task of recommending it to the House a comparatively simple one.
I would not like the House to be under any apprehension that the passing of this measure involves a reversion to pre-war customs which impeded output. Everybody at the present time, both employers and employed, realises the necessity of output. We cannot afford to have any less production. It is as vital to keep up our production to-day as it was during the War, I need only refer to one set of considerations which will make this necessity very obvious. We are a great importing country, and we must always remain so, both for food and for raw material. Prior to the War we paid for our imports by exporting goods, by services which we rendered as conveyers of goods on the sea, and by interest which we earned upon securities which we held abroad. But look at the situation to-day We have sold great masses of securities during the War, and the interest which we now derive from foreign securities has immensely decreased. We can only make up for that method of paying for our imports by increasing our production. Again, if you take the services which we rendered by supplying ships to the world, our shipping to-day has greatly decreased and in the market rivals are growing up, notably in the United States of America, which will do a great deal of their own transport in the future. We can only make up for that deficiency again by increased production of goods at home. And even then I have not stated the whole necessity of the position. We have become, during the War, debtors to foreign countries to the extent of £1,500,000,000. We can only pay the interest on that debt and ultimately wipe out the capital sum if we increase our production here to meet that burden. Therefore, I am perfectly certain that every Member of the House realises the absolute necessity for increasing by every means in our power our output, of goods in the immediate future. Nobody has expressed that necessity in more eloquent terms than my right hon. Friend the Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes), whose clear view and cogent exposition of industrial questions have enlightened and steadied the country during recent months. I am sure that those who sit with him on the Labour Benches of this House have no intention to putting back the hands of the clock, or reverting to a position in which our output may be decreased to a point which may mean ruin to this country. They agree
with me that this Bill is to be regarded as a precursor of better times. If we have good will and understanding in this country, we may hope to achieve a future of prosperity. This Bill is absolutely necessary to produce that feeling of good will and accordingly I look upon it as a, preliminary to those negotiations between employers and employed upon which the whole future of our industry in this country depends. I confidently hope that it will be so regarded in all parts of the House, and in that hope I venture to move-its Second Reading.

Mr. CLYNES: There is one point on which I cannot congratulate my right hon. Friend. I do not say, however, that the blames rests with him, or even with the Ministry of Labour. Great and serious delay has occurred in bringing this Bill before Parliament. It has been under discussion, as is well known, in trade union circles and at conferences and public meetings for a long time past, and the delay has given rise to a great deal of suspicion, and in some ways has caused dislocation of industry and trade. But now that we have the Bill I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman's view that it is our business to make the best of it, and to accept it as a genuine and earnest effort on the part of the Government to keep faith with the definite promise which was given. The question has been put to the right hon. Gentleman as to why the necessity of establishing in law conditions of employment which rested upon voluntary effort before the War, and the answer to that is that, inasmuch as employers could not be trusted by the trade unions to restore, after the War, conditions which during the War the trade unions voluntarily agreed to set aside, the trade unions had to exact from the Government of the day a pledge that they would use the instrument of the law to give them back what they had forfeited while the War was on. Personally I should very much prefer that the employers should agree to restore these workshop practices. Trade unionism has rested throughout all its history upon the principle of voluntary effort, but the special circumstances of the War have produced this situation, and it seems to me now that there is no escape from this legislative treatment.
I join with the right hon. Gentleman in commending the Bill to the acceptance of the House, with perhaps some little re-
servation. I can recall the circumstances of 17th March, 1915, when there was entered into what was termed the Treasury Agreement. I was present as one of the trade union delegates representing the unions concerned, and I think it can be said that the almost unanimous decision which was then reached, to make a very considerable forfeiture of power and privileges on the part of the trade unions, was due to the really patriotic motives which not only inspired the delegates then present, but pervaded working class feeling at that time in relation to the War. It was clearly shown to that conference that the men in the workshop would only be second as a national power to the soldiers in bringing the War to a successful conclusion, and just as workmen were joining the Army in such very large numbers the workmen who remained in the workshops were, in the main, willing to set aside certain personal advantages so as enormously to increase output and make us equal, if not superior, to the enemy in shot and shell. I say that because there are people not so well acquainted with the trade union position who look, not merely with wonderment, but sometimes with disgust upon the very existence of what are called trade union privileges and practices. No one need apologise to any class of the community for these factors that are called trade union privileges, rules and regulations, for every class has its privileges, its practices, regulations and lines of demarcation, and I suppose not least of the classes in the country the legal profession has built up a very considerable network of regulations which constitute formidable privileges for the men who are in the different grades of that honoured service. Indeed, trade unionists have often cited that highly skilled and experienced class of men as those who have set them a great example in building up for manual workers some of those defences to which, I think, they are entitled. So that the difference between the apprenticed engineer and the non-apprenticed, non-skilled labourer is, perhaps, only the difference expressed between the position, say, of the solicitor and of the advocate or barrister. As one who has had very little experience in relations with those different sections of a great profession, I have found that having got these strong, well established privileges, rules and regulations, they adhere to them very rigorously. I think it can be said that the only very considerable class in the community which
set aside its privileges and rules and regulations was the manual working class. I do not know any other. There may be such, and, if so, they are worthy of honourable mention. So no apology is needed for the existence of these rules and regulations.
I have observed in one or two previous Debates references to the attitude of the trade unions now in relation to the position of returned soldiers, and charges were made in a quite recent discussion to the effect that the trade unions were not behaving either honourably or generously towards the returned soldiers who had increased necessities because of the position in which the War had left them, and, therefore, I want to quote the view of this Labour Conference, held on 17thMarch, 1915, on this very question. One of the resolutions passed unanimously by the trade union delegates was:
That in any readjustment of staffs which may have to be effected after the War priority of employment will be given to workmen in our employment at the beginning of the War who were serving with the Colours or who are now in our employment.
The view of the Labour Conference on that date was that this is a condition which the Government should impose upon every employer, in order that after the War was over those men should be given, not an equal chance with those who had not gone to the War, and who had been able, incidentally, to remain at home enjoying good conditions and high earnings in comparison with the earnings of the soldier, but that they should have a prior claim, and that employers should, even by law or by some effective instrument, be required to put that prior claim into practice. I hope that as that was the trade union view on that date it has been in no way weakened by what has happened since 1915, and if need be we can appeal, I believe unanimously, to every trade union to stand by the returned soldier in that sense, that for the sacrifices he made in the nation's interest, and, indeed, for the work he did as a fighter in defending the workmen while they were in the workshops in this country, the workmen now should show themselves willing to act fully up to the declaration of sympathy with the soldier which they made in March, 1915.
The right hon. Gentleman said, with a great deal of truth, that this was an agreed Bill. But there is an aspect of that subject of agreement to which I
should like to draw attention. It is an agreed Bill so fax as the official opinion of organised employers on the one hand and organised trade unions on the other is concerned. But a great question of this kind affects more than two parties, and, although I know I am incurring certain risks in drawing attention to these really outstanding facts, I want to bring them before the notice of the two parties who have formulated this Bill, because in practice it will be seen that these other two parties of whom I speak cannot be permanently shut out of the questions which are raised by the passing of the Bill. The two parties are, in the first place, a very large group, numbering hundreds of thousands of men and women workers, who are not in the trade unions which have entered into this arrangement, and the second great party is the community itself. This very powerful group of organised workers built up around itself trade union regulations, practices, and rules, because of the bitterness of their experience when they had not such rules and regulations. Trade union history and general industrial history show that in the past systems of piecework, sub-division, new arrangements in respect of improved output and greater production, anything in the nature of greater industry on the part of the workmen in the end brought them little or no gain. Indeed, general experience showed that the more efficient a workman made himself the less was his reward. He increased his industry; he increased his energy and got nearer and nearer to the point of human endurance as a wealth maker, and yet experience showed that in the degree that he increased his output his remuneration diminished, so that in the end he was no better rewarded than if he had been a very indifferent worker. So that reduced wages and fresh' methods and rearrangements, usually enforced against his will, embittered the workmen and made them turn to methods of organised self-defence in the form of these different rules and regulations.
But while that is, I think, the history of the case, there is an aspect of the question which skilled workmen, powerful as they are now, cannot continue to leave out of account. It is the claim of the workman who to-day is described as a less skilled or an unskilled workman, and it is
the claim of the woman who, especially because of war conditions, must become more of a breadwinner than the average woman of the industrial classes has been in the past. The effects of the War in its most melancholy and bitterest sense visited many homes which can only be maintained by the future energy and industry of the wage-earning women, and it will not do merely to extend sympathy to them. Opportunities of earning their living under conditions of dignity, under conditions which will give them a proper place in industry, with wages equal to their needs, are gifts that we must extend, not as favours but as rights, to a very considerable number of women who are deeply interested in the Bill. As to the less skilled and the unskilled workers among the men, I would like to put the view that for many years in this House Labour Members have been required by the unanimous view of organised Labour to appeal to the State to establish what Labour has called the right to work. I want to extend that appeal. That is to say, if there is to be right to work, it is a right from which the labourer, whether skilled or less skilled, should not be excluded by any action on the part of the skilled worker. With that right to work I couple the right to rise, to advance, to progress along the avenues of industry, according to the man's energy, initiative, and pursuit of self-education, and all the other individual qualities which are ever prized in this and other countries, so that right to work is not and cannot remain the distinctive claim of any particular class in industry, no matter how powerfully organised that class may be. I would like to see a state of industry that would give wider opportunities and greater chances of advancement in our industrial system to that large number of workers who must begin as labourers and must go on as labourers, who are deprived of those great advantages of apprenticeship and training which happily so many of our skilled men are able to enjoy.
Next to the great group of partners who under this Bill will insist upon having their point of view, there is a fourth partner, the community itself. I am in full agreement with my right hon. Friend in what he said with regard to the question of increasing the quantity and value of the products to be got out of industry by the joint energies of employer and employed. I am not now pursuing broadly the question of the relationship between employers and employed.
I merely want to put the view that any deliberate limitation by the workers of output may be some harm to industry and some loss to employers, but it is bound to be a great loss and a real loss to the workman himself. Its tendency is to diminish earnings, and, worse than that, its tendency is to diminish the purchasing power of what the workmen earn. Dearness is inseparable from scarcity, and to the extent that you lessen the quantity of goods produced by labour in industrial effort, to that extent you are creating a dear market in which there is reduced earning, because of diminished output. All I want to add to this view of our industrial conditions is this: that if workmen can be assured now—and in practice under this Bill I believe they can be assured—of sharing in the increased results accruing from any increased energy on their part in order to produce greater output, and becoming real sharers in the increased wealth that may accrue from their energy, it would be an extremely foolish thing on their part to put any obstacle in the way of greatly increasing the output of goods. It is because the workers in the past were not in a position to secure and guarantee for themselves an increased share in the results of their increased efforts that they resorted to the device to which I have referred. If workmen cannot depend upon the Government, if they cannot depend upon Parliament, or upon a Court of Arbitration, they can at least depend upon the strength of the organisation by which they are now defended. The great growth in the number and authority of the trade unions should be a sufficient security and argument to give them confidence that if they do agree to co-operate with the State and with the employers in greatly increasing the output of any kind of goods they can depend on receiving their reasonable and fair share of any good results accruing from that new line of policy.
With these observations, I desire to commend this Bill to ready acceptance. I hope there will be no attempt to-day to take the Bill through its various stages, because it may be that some aspects of the questions on which I have touched at least as regards the position of the less skilled men, and the position of the women, may have to find expression in Amendments which ought to be put upon the Paper and fairly considered. I am glad that although there has been delay—perhaps unavoidable because the right hon.
Gentleman has been so busy since he took office—the trade unions will see that there-is a genuine intention on the part of the Government fully to restore their conditions, and I hope that when they are restored the trade unions will turn a new mind to many of these newer problems which present-day industry has produced and which are indeed a by-product of the great War.

Mr. REMER: I do not rise to offer any criticism of the Bill because I am in complete agreement with the measure, and also with the two speeches from the two Front Benches. My object as an employer is to point out the only fly in the ointment that I know of so far as the employers are concerned. There seems to me a great difficulty arising in connection with this measure, because at the present moment conditions existing in foreign countries are-not the same as are provided for in this Bill with regard to this country. It is-necessary for the Government to declare clearly to the manufacturers of this country what their future economic policy is, in order that manufacturers here may be adequately protected. I have no doubt that I shall be referred to the Labour Clauses in the Peace Treaty, but I think it is absolutely necessary that those Labour Clauses in the Peace Treaty should be adequately and prominently brought forward in Paris. I should like to refer to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and also of the Minister of Labour, with respect to restricted output. However pious those sentiments may be, we must realise clearly that there is restriction of output going on now, and to a very serious extent. A very large manufacturer of motor cars and motor wagons tells me that instead of turning out fifty wagons per week they are only turning out twenty-five. I think that question should be very strongly taken up by the Government, in order that that position may be remedied as quickly as possible. I have previously suggested to the Minister of Labour that he should start—and I hope that Labour Members will co-operate —a system whereby the workers should be educated as to the folly of this stupid policy of restricted output.

Mr. A. SHORT: What about the employers?

Mr. REMER: I am coming to that. So far as employers are concerned, any employer who does not see that his workmen.
receive a fair and proper share for their labour is a fool. I have already expressed that opinion in this House, and here let me say how much I approve and am thankful for the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) in favour of a scheme of profit-sharing. I am a profit-sharer myself. I have tried it, and am quite sure that it is the one means by which labour disputes can be avoided. I have previously said in this House that I am in favour of profit-sharing being made compulsory. I think the great evil of profit-sharing is that some employers take men into their employ at a low rate and make up their wages by profit-sharing. Therein lies the great difficulty and great objection which some of the labouring classes have to profit-sharing. Profit-sharing should be an addition to the wage and not merely something to make up wages. It should be an addition to the ordinary trade union wages. I was glad to notice that in a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Clynes) that point was very clearly brought out. I am sure that not only the question of profit-sharing but an adequate share in the profits being guaranteed to the employed, and also the question of restriction of output, need to be very closely taken up by the Government, and I think that a system of education in the workshops to get rid of this pernicious system of restricted output is absolutely necessary if this country is to produce with its foreign competitors.

Major E. WOOD: It is true that this is an agreed measure. There is no subject on which it is more essential that the Government should redeem their pledges than this, in order to leave the ground free for those happier methods on which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) gave us ground for hope. The right hon. Gentleman need foe under no misapprehension as to the point of view from which a great many of us regard what are commonly called trade union privileges. I certainly should be anxious to extend, and foster, trade union privileges as an instrument for putting trade unions in a position to render the best service possible to the State as regards quantity of output, and so forth. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman can count on my support in any legitimate extention of trade union privileges. I would emphasise what the right hon. Gentleman said in regard to the limited extent to" which we are right in saying that this is
an agreed measure. He directed our attention to the position of women under this Bill. If the Bill were passed into law as it stands, I should regard the position in which it would leave women as most unsatisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman said, with perfect truth, that during the War the workshop had been of hardly less importance than the Army, and, although he did not say, I think he meant to imply that the work of women in the workshop had been hardly less important and hardly less self-sacrificing than the work of men. At the very moment when your learned professions are opening their doors to women, when this House has not only extended the franchise to women but has extended to them also the right to sit in this House if elected, and at the time when the other place is contemplating allowing them to sit within its walls, what an anomaly it would be to close the door upon women by a firm fixed bar within certain trades that are affected by this Bill. I know that that is only partly the case, but I am concerned with the principle laid down in the Bill, and I would recommend to my right hon. Friend that it is a dangerous principle to recognise by Statute. As far as I am seised of the opinion of women on this point—and I had some means of judging it—I believe that they are anxious to stand down until trade can reabsorb returning soldiers, whose claims they, along with all the rest of the community, recognise. But what they do resent is that this Bill should establish a sex bar, debarring them from engaging in industry at the very moment when the doors of other professions are being opened to their richer sisters.
I had a figure given to me which, if accurate, is sufficiently striking. In July, 1918, there were no fewer than 792,000 women in there were affected by this Bill. Of these, only 450,000 were directly replacing men. If that be so, it means that we are invited to put a bar upon 340,000 women who are not directly in competition with men. My right hon. Friend, on the one hand, quite recognised the difficulty in which we are at present with regard to the state of employment, but I cannot believe that legal State prohibition is the right method of dealing with this. After all, the women concerned are not working for their health. They are working for a livelihood, and they have made just as big sacrifices in the War as their brothers who have fought overseas, and while they admit that it is per-
fectly right to take all necessary steps in: a transitional period to reassure the reabsorbtion of and preference for soldiers and men returned, I would like my right hon. Friend in charge of the Bill to emphasise the fact that it is a transitional position and that the interval of twelve months must be used to lay down better conditions by which we may deal with the whole sex problem. I believe that in that respect the present Bill is unstatesmanlike and goes too far, and I hope that when it gets into Committee my right hon. Friend will be prepared to consider sympathetically Amendments to meet those difficulties. If he does not, and if trade unions are not prepared to meet the case, then women will feel that something is being done which will cause great re-sentiment on the part of many thousands of those who have no less a share in the administration and direction of the affairs of the nation than we have ourselves.

Mr. ACLAND: I rise only to emphasise the plea which has been put forward by the hon. Member who has preceded me, that there should be no attempt to do anything in the nature of rushing this Bill until it has been very thoroughly examined from the point of view of the women who are interested in the matter. They are undoubtedly considerably alarmed and cannot take the measure of agreement which has been reached as to the exact provisions of the Bill as covering the position. They have, in the organisations with which I have been in touch more or less during the War, no desire whatever to prevent the main and legitimate purpose of this Bill—to restore trade union customs which were surrendered—but I do think that it will be an injustice to them, at any rate until the case has been carefully gone into and thrashed out, that they should be for all time by legislative enactment prohibited from working in those departments of work which they have specially made their own during the War, and. which did not really exist in the country before the War.

Sir R. HORNE: There seems to be some misunderstanding about this portion of the Bill. The Bill does not imply either what the right hon. Gentleman or the hon. Gentleman who preceded him has said in any shape or form. It does not prohibit anything for all time. It only proposes to restore the customs which existed before the War. It does not exclude any woman from any position in
which she was before the War, and, in particular, it only proposes that the employers shall be obliged for a period of twelve months after the Act comes into force to keep the pre-war customs in operation.

Mr. ACLAND: But we all know how difficult it is to make any change when a thing has received the authority of this Parliament and has been in operation for a year.

Sir R. HORNE: You cannot restore trade union customs without doing that.

Mr. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman maybe perfectly right, but I would point out the effect of Sub-section (2) of Clause (1), which is the most operative Clause of the Bill:
where any industry or branch of industry which before the War was not carried on in an establishment, commenced to be carried on in the establishment during the War and continues to be carried on therein after the termination thereof, or where the establishment of one which commenced to be worked after the beginning of the War.
That is the point. New trades and new establishments were set up, and women practically were really in charge and very effectively in charge.

Sir R. HORNE: In these new trades.

Mr. ACLAND: It does not limit it at all to trades which were before the War run really by men—
Where the industry or branch industry is carried on in an establishment which commenced to be worked after the beginning of the War, the owner of the establishment shall be under the Act obliged at the expiration of two months from the passing of this Act to introduce or permit the introduction of and for one year after such introduction is effected to maintain or permit the continuance of such trade practices as obtained before the War in other establishments where that industry or branch was carried on under circumstances most nearly analogous to those of the establishment in question.
That has undoubtedly created a fear that it is possible under this Bill to say, "Here are new industries which women have entered into and men have not taken up at all." They are going to be judged on the analogy of something else, and if, on the analogy of that other industry, women were either expressly or de facto excluded that exclusion would apply to the new processes that have sprung up. I hope that this is not so, but that is the fear, and therefore full opportunity should be given to thrash it out. The women concerned, who undoubtedly number many
tens of thousands, want at any rate to have the chance of having this question tried out in Committee, and they want to ensure that the mere fact of belonging to the female sex shall not by itself debar them, and that trades or professions which are themselves new, or are new in this country since the beginning of the War, shall not be included in the scope of the Bill. If that is so, then the Minister will succeed in showing where it comes in. If not, then that is the sort of question which is to be gone into. We shall all be sorry if the Bill is delayed, but it is no fault of ours or of the Minister that the matter only comes on shortly before the Whitsuntide Recess. I do not think there will be anything lost by a short delay which will necessitate having these matters gone into in Committee. If the case that these women are not affected is a good one, it will be easy to show that, and there will be no undue delay. If it is not a good one, if the fear of the women is well founded, then it is far better that the matter should be gone into in Committee upstairs or on the floor of this House. There is a real desire that the Bill should not be rushed. It is certain that the Minister does not intend to put it through without giving time for careful Amendments to be put down, and I hope that this appeal is unnecessary, as it represents a feeling that is very widespread among the outside public and Members of this House.

Mr. SEDDON: I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill can have no complaint as to its reception. I was delighted to hear what was said by the right hon. Member for Miles Platting (Mr. Clynes). I, like him, on behalf of organised Labour, was a partner in the agreement which was come to in 1915. Then it was clearly stated that the Government would give facilities for the re-establishment of the trade union practices that existed before the War, and I am a little bit surprised that a representative of the historic Liberal party should wish the Government to treat their promise as a mere scrap of paper.

Mr. ACLAND: To whom are you referring?

Mr. SEDDON: To you.

Mr. ACLAND: The hon. Gentleman has completely mistaken the purport of what I said. I was talking only about people
who do not come within the definition of those employed in ordinary processes before the War. I was trying to safeguard the position of women who have entered into new processes.

6.0 P.M.

Mr. SEDDON: I quite follow the argument. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop it there is some point in what I was saying. It is a notorious fact that many trade unions under their rules did exclude women from engaging in those industries. Those particular unions were a party to this country and the Government are merely carrying out the pledges which they gave in producing this Bill. I hope that this Bill, the fulfilment of pledges made, will be a dead letter very soon, and I want to give my reasons. It has been said, and said truly, that during the period of War women have been brought into industries in great numbers and have created for themselves a position that cannot be ignored. The last thing that is required now is a sex war. We have to recognise that we are living in a new world, that we are living under changed conditions, and that those trade unions which in pre-war days laid down certain rules as the result of bitter experience—they, too are the victims of the changes which have brought women in such large numbers into industry. Women will claim their places in these industries in days to come. My hon. Friend the Member for Maccles field seemed to assume that this Bill, or the words that fell from the-right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Bench, favoured profit-sharing, that it laid down the argument that while trade union rights should be restored the harmony of future industry is going to be solved by profit-sharing. I do not share-his view. I am not here to argue profit-sharing, but to state the facts as I understand them. For ill or good the trade union movement suspects profit-sharing, and I think that if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Ham were here he could give some glaring experiences of profit-sharing in London in days gone by. Profit-sharing may be good in itself, but a thing that is suspect by the great body of workers is not going to solve our immediate problems.
What is wanted is a better relationship between capital and labour, or, as I may say, a fair and square deal with all the cards upon the table. That is going to do more to bring about a better relationship.
between employers and workmen than anything else I can conceive. The question of the restoration of trade union practices will, in my opinion, be disastrous if carried out now to the extent to which they were enforced in pre-war days. I say that because trade union practices were the child of the employer, as has well been said by my right hon. Friend. Trade unions secured their privileges through bitter experience and fighting. Trade union rules that were abrogated to help the country in the War were the result of bitter fighting in days gone by. The bitterness arose from the memory that when a good workman gave good work the employer largely took advantage of him when periods of bad trade came along. Although we have passed through the bitter agony of four and a half years of war, we have to remember that we have a legacy of the bitter feud that existed between capital and labour, and no mere profit-sharing is going to remove that legacy. The remedy must be something more effective and far-reaching. So far as I apprehend the position, the restoration and the application in their entirety of pre-war practices will give our competitors in foreign countries not only a good start, but will leave us a long way behind. If you, for mere adherence to past traditions, are going to give to organised labour something that is going to destroy the trade of the country, you are not only going to injure the employer but the workman as well. I think there is a better way. While I am in favour of the Bill, and of the Government carrying out its pledges, I repeat that I hope it will be a dead letter at the earliest possible moment, not solely because of the obligation that we have towards the women who have so nobly helped the country, but because of the new industrial conditions that present themselves as a result of the War. I would suggest to those unions which are claiming the fulfilment of this pledge a recognition of the changes that have taken place. Competition is going to be exceedingly keen during the next few years. We have it from various trades that even at this moment, probably through conditions that the Government cannot possibly avoid, our great Ally the United States is coming into our markets, not only with better facilities, but is coming in well prepared to capture the markets. We have also the knowledge that in many directions Japan, another great competitor, has been given
privileges in certain directions, and it follows, as the night the day, that if we are going to carry the burden of taxation and maintain our place in the forefront of the world as a manufacturing nation, then we must have a changed attitude, both from the point of view of capital and of labour.
I want to give an illustration; what applies to one trade, I think, could be applied to others. The Whitley Councils, to my mind, bear the germs of a right reconstruction upon just and equitable lines between workmen and employers. The pottery trade some twelve months ago established a Whitley Council. That Council examines the whole activities of the industry from A to Z. It is not merely a question of wages and hours of labour or methods of production; the books of the employers are open for inspection to the auditors. Processes, new and old, are examined, markets are examined. In a word, under this scheme the workmen and the employers sit round the same table, they know exactly what the profits are, and all suspicion is removed. That trade to-day is working more harmoniously than any other trade in the country. The workmen know there is nothing being withheld from them, and, knowing the facts and being fair-minded, the harmony in this industry is greater today than it has ever been before. I see that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Brace) is present. He knows as well as I do what suspicion in the minds of the workmen either of sliding scales or any other method means, when the workmen have not access to the same information as the employers. It may be true or untrue, but it is the general talk that when there has been in operation a sliding scale the workmen felt that they were being, I will not say cheated, but misled by the figures placed on the table. If employers in this country want us to maintain our position in the forefront of manufacturing nations, they have got to change their point of view and let the workmen know as much about their businesses, both manufacturing and selling, and about profits, as they do about wages and hours. Some employers may take exception to that, but I want to tell them quite frankly that it is either an understanding with labour or a revolution. They have to take their choice. Having made the choice, no sane man would prefer revolution to a friendly and just understanding. If the employers can convince
the workmen that their attitude is changed and that they are prepared to meet them fairly and squarely round the table to settle the domestic politics of that particular industry, this Bill will speedily become a dead letter, and the women who are in fear now will not only be engaged in industry, but will be welcomed by every section of the workers, the males in particular.
I think we would be deceiving ourselves if we assume that because there is a large number of women who have been engaged in industry during the War there are jobs for them as well as for the men who are coming back, unless new avenues of employment are found or new markets are secured for our production. After all, we know that before women came into industry there were periods of depression and unemployment for the male portion. The industrial market has been immensely swollen by the advent of the women into the ranks of industrial workers. They are not going back again, and it is not merely by the Government fulfilling the pledge in restoring trade union pre-war practices, but by a new attitude on the part of capital and labour, that the problem will be solved, and if we can get that new attitude, where each side can trust the other, we need have no fear that the industrial worker will be just as willing and the employer will be just as venturesome with his capital in days to come as in days gone by. We have to recognise that the community of the trenches has given us a new democracy. The soldier has a different outlook, whether he sat in the office or was learning a profession, whether he was a workman at the bench or a miner working in the bowels of the earth. All these men by fraternisation and organisation have had an education which no university could give to a body of men. You have to recognise that. The women, many of whom had been secluded and never thought they would have to leave the security of their homes, under the stimulus of patriotism went into the workshops, and those women are going to stop in the world of industry. You have the men who have come back with their new point of view; you have the women with their enlarged outlook, and it is not merely Bills like this that will give us industrial peace and prosperity, but a new outlook and a new view, so that we can each and all put our shoulders to the wheel and bear the burdens we have to carry.

Captain O'GRADY: I appeal to my hon. Friends below me not to delay this Bill. In the first place, the Bill is a great deal between the employers and the trade unions, and while it is quite true that there is a new point of view, I think the House would be wise in view of the existing circumstances of the industrial world to grant the Bill a reading without delay. I was one of those who appeared at the Treasury in 1915, and although at that time I was against the Treasury I subsequently supported the scheme and its incorporation in the Munitions of War Act. I have been talking to some of the employers who were directly affected by a Bill of this character, and I want to pay my need of credit to them. Everyone knows Sir Allan Smith, of the Engineering Employers' Federation, and he has declared that it would be a very grave act for the community not to accept the present agreed Bill. The employers have unanimously accepted it. I want to say at once that the Government are in no sense responsible for the delay in the restoration of pre-war practices. The delay has occurred because of negotiations that have been going on between the employers and the skilled workmen. There are few men in this House who ought to object to this Bill more than my right hon. Friend and myself. We have got a large membership of the male dilutee class and of women workers. While I am in sympathy with them, we ought not to overlook the fact that not a single trade union women's organisation has made suggestions for the Amendment of this Bill, and not a single one of the branches of the women affiliated to my National Federation has made suggestions with regard to the Amendment of this Bill. Our attitude of mind and our policy is that in loyalty to our skilled comrades who gave up their old trade union practices and privileges in 1915 for the purpose of winning the War more speedily, our unskilled workmen's unions and our trade union women's organisation are going to support this Bill. What we hope is, like my hon. Friend opposite, that the Bill in practice will become a dead letter. As a matter of fact I go so far as to say this, that I hope when this Bill becomes law both the employers and the skilled workmen and representatives of semi-skilled workmen's organisations and representatives of distinct trade union women's organisations may meet and endeavour to mitigate any particular asperi-
ties or hardships that may be contained in this Bill against the general workers. That is why I plead that there should be up delay in passing this vindication of a pledge given by the Government which must be carried out.
Let me refer to some of the speeches which have been made. There has been the statement to the effect that trade union rules limit output. I thought we had got away from that point of mind entirely. I am one of those who have been engaged in setting up or framing the constitution of something like thirty-three industrial councils for industries in this country, and I am constantly up against this point of view which seems to me to be a more dangerous point of view than employers think or than pre-war trade union practices are. I still find there is a desire to get more out of the human factor than in the past. You can get no more in point of output from the human factor in industry but you can increase output very considerably, and everybody who knows anything about the matter will agree, but that can only be done by a more scientific organisation of industry than that which existed in pre-war times. I was speaking to an industrial reconstruction committee the other night on this point and I gave my experience in America in 1903. I pointed out how things there were organised and I gave an instance of a cabinet factory, where the timber went in on one side and came out at the other, the finished product ready to put on the railway truck. We hear about hustle. I never saw any hustle in the American factories. What I did see was that the skilled workman kept at his bench with a steady stroke all day long which told at the end. When he wanted a piece of timber, or anything else, instead of leaving the bench, and thus having the highly paid man going down for the timber to get it marked out, and thereby possibly losing three hours, an unskilled man, who was of course paid less, was sent for it, and in that way the time of the highly-paid skilled man was saved. I worked in a factory myself where, as a matter of fact, and the same practice obtains now, I had to go down four flights of stairs where the timber was cut and to go back those four flights of stairs again, and on every job lasting about ten days I lost three days because of a lack of organisation in that factory.
The other day we were setting up an industrial council in a certain industry which I will not mention, but the name of which
I am prepared to give to any hon. Member. The employers said they were subject to foreign competition and that if they did not get a considerable output from the men with reduced hours and increased wages, their foreign competitors would knock them out of the market. We told this fact all over the Kingdom, that the industry must be saved by giving greater output. The men came along to the industrial council and they showed that they could give 25 per cent. increased output, although the hours had been reduced and the wages increased. The employers said, "That is not enough, we must have 30 per cent." The men declared in answer to that, "If you will organise your factory scientifically so that the men will not have to carry great loads along the workshop, or, in other words, if you will take the product when it comes out of the machine upon a kind of endless chain, you will save us men running about and we can give you a 35 per cent. increase in output if the employers will do that." They are still as they were, and apparently are going to remain as they have been for twenty-five years. I suggest to the House that if that trade is lost, as it will be under those conditions, the workmen are not responsible for it. I mention these matters in reply to what was said by my hon. Friend opposite and the hon. Member for Maccles field, and I emphasise again that I do not think you cart get any more out of the human factor in industry. But I am absolutely convinced you can get a considerably greater output if employers and workmen on the Whitley Councils will only set-to and scientifically organise the factories and workshops of this Kingdom. I hope that in that process, and as a result of the efforts of the Whitley Council, that the trade union practices that will be restored by this Bill will not unduly interfere, and I hope when this Bill becomes law that the representatives of the workmen upon the Whitley Councils and the trade unions will see the necessity if labour gets a square deal of considerably increasing the output and putting us on a fair footing with our world competitors.

Mr. INSKIP: The virtue of this Bill is that it is such an obviously honest endeavour to relieve a promise given under exceptional circumstances. When the Ministry of Labour was introducing the Bill on Second Reading he was interrupted by an hon. Friend below me, who inquired as to the necessity for putting this arrange-
ment into an Act of Parliament. As I understand, the bargain which was made in 1915 was a bargain by Parliament as much as by Ministers, and it is for Parliament to redeem that promise which was then made. From that point of view I welcome the Bill partly for its own sake, and partly because it is an earnest of that good will and good understanding which I hope will prevail to an increasing extent between Ministers and the Labour party and the leaders of the trade unions. I cannot help also recollecting that the arrangement under which the customs of trade unions were abandoned temporarily was entered into by the leaders of the trade unions in the teeth of opposition of some of those who commonly were associated with them. I had not the honour of being a Member of this House at the time, but I have a very vivid recollection of reading some of the bitter speeches made by Mr. Philip Snowden, who taunted his brethren of the labour world on their folly in listening to the voice of the Government, and in which he tried to persuade the Labour party that once they abandoned those practices no power, either in heaven or on earth, would ever enable them to regain the privileged position in which they had been. It was to the honour of the Labour party that those bitter gibes and taunts had no effect in the councils of the party. I venture to think that this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, whether it becomes a dead letter or an effective measure, will be a monument to the good sense and patriotism of the Labour party in entering into an arrangement which one can easily understand they were reluctant at first sight to do.
I think it should be said on this occasion from this side of the House, lest any misunderstanding should arise, that we welcome the Bill not only on that ground, but because we recognise that there are numbers of these practices which were introduced for the real benefit of the working men, and for those actually engaged in the trade or business, and not merely for the purpose of protecting their pockets. The customs are based on good sense. They were devised in many cases to promote efficiency and to procure safety for the worker, and not merely to restrict output. It would be an unfortunate impression to arise from this Debate if it were thought that these practices are akin to those which are concerned with the restriction or diminution
of output. In so far as those practices prevent the enslavement of the workers and prevent the workers being ground to death by bitter drudgery—which, I suppose, none of us know who have not been engaged in it—and in so far as those practices prevent long hours and Sunday labour, we welcome the restoration of them, and I hope that they will be restored at the earliest possible moment. Side by side, however, with those, the Minister of Labour and the right hon. Gentleman opposite have called attention to the desirability, or the undesirability, rather, of restoring the customs with regard to the diminution of output. I hope that that question will not be overlooked, but that our trade unions, if I may make the suggestion without disrespect to them, and the Ministry for Labour will actively enter upon negotiations with the object of seeing which of the customs have the effect of restricting output and which could be abandoned without endangering either the health or safety of the workers. I know this, and I am sure other hon. Members know it, that there has been a downward tendency in some trades so far as output is concerned. I am familiar with the coal industry in one part of South Wales, and I have figures which satisfy me that for some time past, quite apart from the shortening of hours of labour, there has been a diminution of output per man of coal. That is due, apparently, to conservatism in clinging too rigidly to the less useful methods of winning coal, and partly no doubt, to practices for the restriction of output which have become second nature with some of the workmen. I hope that the leaders of the coal industry will take active steps to see that mere conservatism in those matters should not stand in the way of increasing output at the earliest possible moment.
There is one phrase in the Bill which I regret, and I suggest that it would have been better if the passage had been left out. In the No. 2 Bill, as it was agreed, it appeared that proceedings against an employer could only be taken by or on behalf of a trade union or federation of trade unions. I am sorry to see that words are introduced in Section 2, Sub-section (3), which provide that any worker may take proceedings, and if I am not wrong the importance of this is that a recalcitrant member of a trade union, or one who is not up to date in his appreciation of the principles which the right hon. Gentleman
laid down in his speech from the Front Opposition Bench, may take action, and successfully take action, to enforce a practice which the commonalty of the workmen are agreed ought not to be restored because it tends to restrict output. My right hon. Friend shakes his head. I do not know what the legal position may be if an independent workman, obstinate perhaps, takes proceedings against an employer because he is not content to see a particular practice abandoned. It is quite true that under the subsequent Clause there is a provision that an agreement by a trade union of which any workman is a member, to abandon a practice will afford a defence for such proceedings; but obviously these agreements must take some considerable time to effect, and they may not always be made in time to prevent the operation of the Section to which I have called attention. That is somewhat a Committee point, but I refer to it in order to emphasise the necessity for the Government and the trade unions foreseeing that these practices which restrict output, and the bad trade union practices, if I may so describe them, are abandoned at the earliest possible moment in order to produce that happier state of things to which we look forward. I think we have all welcomed the speeches which have been made this afternoon, showing the goodwill that exists in this matter between labour and capital. We heard with interest the speech which was delivered by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Seddon) as to the operation of the Whitley Councils in one particular industry, and undoubtedly that was a striking case due to the disinterested labours of one man perhaps more than others, Mr. Johnstone, in that industry. But I think it is the dream of some of us to see a time when capital and labour will forget the bitter matters that separated them in the past. I do not know why it should not be possible for servants in the future to say, "I love my master," and for the master to say, "I love my workmen," instead of the workmen being taught that the employer is the enemy of labour and for the employer to be taught that the workman is a man to be cheated and kept in the dark at every turn. If this Bill introduces a better spirit into the relations between labour and capital it will be worth untold gold, not only to the industries which it will affect, but to the country as a whole, and it will do more than any other measure, perhaps, upon which we have
been engaged to bring about these happy conditions which will restore prosperity to this country. It may be desirable to build cottages, it may be desirable to see the land cultivated, it may be desirable to improve the means of transport, but not one of these Bills will be worth anything in comparison with the effect of this measure if it is an introduction of that millennium to which I think we may look forward, that real millennium, when labour and capital will co-operate with a whole-hearted belief in the interests of both sides to every agreement, will co-operate, not in the interests of either party or even of both parties, but in the interests of the nation as a whole.

Mr. WIGNALL: When the hon. Member who has just sat down was speaking about masters loving their servants and servants loving their masters, I thought we had departed from the stage of master and servant to-day. We want the employer and the workman to treat each other as human beings, and to associate together for the common good of the people. Both are there for one purpose. The employer is not there for the purposes of his health, or for recreation, or for pleasure, and neither. is the workman. They are both there for the severe necessity of getting that which is necessary for the maintenance of life and home, so that we want both to co-operate. In reference to the Bill which is named the Restoration of Pre-War Practices Bill, there are some pre-war practices which we should like to see buried for ever, but the spirit and principle of the Bill are embodied in a pledge that was given and which must be redeemed, and consequently this Bill is but the fulfilment of an agreement honourably entered into, and must be given back to those who surrendered privileges at the outbreak of war. I listened with a great deal of interest to the speeches that have been made, and it strikes me that some of the speakers seemed to think that the Bill is intended to drive women out of employment. Nothing of the kind; but I think it is intended primarily to prevent women becoming competitors in industry with men. I am sure we have all been proud of the loyal response the women made to the appeal of the nation to enter into industry and to give the assistance that was necessary for carrying on the work of the nation to help us to win the War, and there is no doubt about it that the assistance rendered by the women
at that period did materially assist the nation to win the War. But it was understood and clearly expressed, and it is clearly understood today, that the women who entered into certain occupations entered into them under the stress of circumstances, to fill up a gap that had been created, but not to remain permanently in that industry. I have looked upon women in certain branches of industry with horror and dismay, and have felt it was a crying shame that there was a need for them to remain there. I have seen them working in our docks, in our large factories, and in our gas works, as well as in our munition factories, and no one for a moment would think that these women would have a right to remain in industry of that kind, and so I think I am right and justified in saying that the purpose of the Bill is, not to drive women out of industry, but it simply means this, that the practices that do exist, the privileges that were existing prior to the War, whatever they were, however they existed, according to the agreements and customs and conditions that did exist in these various factories, shall be restored to exactly the same position as they were. Some of us, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South East Leeds (Captain O'Grady) explained, ought to object to the Bill—but we do not. We are directly concerned in it; but we should be dishonourable men if we fought against it, because it is the fulfilment of an agreement entered into. We must admit to-day that women have been imported into industry, and when it comes to the test of who shall be employed as the breadwinner of the home, whether it shall be the man or the woman, there can be no question or doubt that the man must be the toiler and the woman must attend to her own duties, but it is not driving women out of industry in the sense that we have heard to-day, so that we can rest our minds in peace on that issue and not be alarmed. The House can be assured of this—that if there was any serious opposition to this Bill it would come from the women's organisation itself, and we have not yet known of a complaint lodged or any opposition to this Bill, because we all realise that it is the fulfilment of an obligation.
In regard to restriction of output, I have been for thirty years a trade union official, and it is what we would call a general union. I think I am about as
mixed up an organiser of trade unions as possible, because I deal with so many trades. But I have heard the argument of the restriction of output used so often and the comparison of different countries has been so often made, to prove that the British workman was either lazy, or neglecting his duty, or unable to compete with the workman in other countries, that I would like to say a few words on that point. When you read statistics and returns on paper you are sometimes puzzled and wonder how it all comes about. I will give an illustration. I am concerned now in the finishing department of the tinplate industry which, as hon. Members know, is a very old-fashioned industry, and after the McKinley Law was passed and the industry was established in the United States we used to have terrible comparisons made which used to confuse us very much, but some years ago I had the opportunity of travelling through the United States and I had the privilege of investigating many industries with which I had been directly concerned, and I soon solved the problem. The industries in the United States had started where we had finished.
Very frequently the facilities for carrying on industry were so efficient and so complete that the only marvel to me was that the comparison was not more striking. You had this illustration. A man tinning plates in this country could not produce-more than thirty boxes in eight hours, whereas in the United States in certain works a man produced eighty boxes in the same time. It was a problem to me, because I knew men had gone out from this country to work there after the passing of the McKinley Act. I got into one of those large tinplate works which I had heard so often talked about. What did I find? The same man who had worked in South Wales, with precisely the same type of machine, precisely the same method of working, the same material, working for eight hours under exactly the same conditions, though he could not turn out more than thirty boxes in eight hours in South Wales, in Transylvania he could turn out eighty boxes. It seemed a bit of a puzzle, but I soon solved the problem. The employer on this side was working his machine as slowly as possible, because he thought it paid him to do so. I am not going to enter into technicalities and trade secrets. When he reads my speech he will know exactly what I am talking
about. Out there the machine was running as fast as they could run it. In this country the machine was going about seven revolutions a minute; out there it was going about twenty-one revolutions a minute, the result being that at the end of eight hours the machine on this side turned out thirty boxes and that on the other side eighty boxes, of course with a proportionate increase of wages. That solved that problem at once, and when the workmen here talked this matter over they said, "Give us speed, and you will get the output. Set your machine going quickly, and you will get your plates turned out." There have been improvements since then, of course, but at that time you could not alter it.
There are other industries I could quote, which I saw during that tour throughout the United States, which afford comparisons. Instead of men having to carry heavy loads long distances, material having to be taken to one end and back again, and there being much overlapping. I have seen the whole factory out there arranged in such a way that the process started at one end and finished at the other. Of course, we are blamed for that. Let me say that I have had the opportunity of travelling through the United States and of travelling a good deal through the Continent of Europe. I went about with one determination, and that was to discover everything that was worth knowing, and to see for myself. I came back with the firm conclusion in my mind that the British workman, given the same facilities, the same opportunity, the same machinery, and the same incentive, is equal to any other man throughout the world. I have never been ashamed of the British workman, but I have often been ashamed of the British employers who have not encouraged the British workman to give of his best. I have seen manual workers in our own factories with an inventive genius who, in working their machines, could see where improvements could be made. I have known of cases where such improvements have been pointed out, and I myself have heard the employer say, "I am paid for the brain work in this factory; you go on with your job," and so it has never been encouraged. I hope that the Whitley Councils and the works committees that are being formed, and in which I, as well as other of my colleagues, have taken an active interest, will remove that barrier which has existed
between the employer and the employéand will enable them to consult together, and realise that it is to their mutual advantage to get the best that can be got out of the machinery in the interest of all concerned.
Though I say that we welcome the Bill, because it will be the fulfilment of a pledge given, there is one difficulty probably with which we have got to contend. This Bill is not going to remove all our difficulties by any means. There are difficulties enough to meet to-day. There is the difficulty of the employment of the returned soldier, who may not be quite so-efficient to-day as he was before the War. Any man who has passed through the tragedy of the War, the hardships and the suffering, the horrors of the trenches, and the difficulties of an arduous campaign, can never be as efficient as he was before he entered into that terrible War. We have all seen the marked change in them. We have realised the difference in their physique and appearance, and we know that for years to come those men cannot be—and possibly never will be in many cases—as efficient workmen as they were before they entered the War. There must be consideration shown to them, and their condition must be taken into account. We must see that a man of that sort is not put upon the scrap heap, or thrown aside as a worked out machine. The employer who has kept open a man's job must realise the possibility of the man not being so efficient, and due consideration must be shown to him, and he must be helped to return to the normal stats of health again. Therefore, I say that this Bill is not going to remove all the difficulties. It may create some more difficulties, but it must be introduced, and I hope the House will accept it and pass it, because it is the fulfilment of a pledge given to the trade unions of this country, who have looked forward to it, anticipate it, and welcome it.

Mr. J. W. WILSON: I desire, in a very few words, to welcome this Bill, and congratulate the Government even on the delay which has occurred, if it has been fruitful in producing a Bill which, ab initio, comes before us with the blessing of the employers' and employés'associations of the country. I think those of us who have been in this House for any time must recognise the great difficulty we have experienced if we have attempted even in this House to legalise and to put into print
our own customs and practices, much more so when we have attempted to legalise the practice between this and the other Chamber. If we have not agreed, it has been a bitter fight, and even when the victory has been won, we have not always been satisfied with the result. I think anyone, looking over the industrial history of the last quarter of a century, must feel that attempts to legalise and put into Acts of Parliament customs and practices of employment have not always been successful. Therefore, we feel that this Bill, although it does not go into great detail, has on broad lines fulfilled the pledge given at the last election, irrespective of party candidates, whether they were Labour men, Liberals, or Unionists in that respect—we feel that this Bill is starting with better prospects of success than any Bill could do which was fought out in detail in Committee of this House, and was perhaps provocative on one side and the other.
I agree with the hon. Member for South-East Leeds (Captain O'Grady) in all that he said. No one in this House, or few at any rate, have had more practice than he has had in the initiation of these industrial councils and so forth in connection with bringing together both sides, and discussing the questions in mutual interest. I feel greatly encouraged by what he has said here to-day, and that we may look a great deal to this new movement, which deserves all the encouragement and help it can get, in enabling machinery to be set up, whereby both sides and all interests shall be able to confer together, and, above all, shall have the deliberateness of conference, not by rushing decisions, but thoroughly thrashing them out before they are sought to be put into operation. We know that the question of output is one which anyone can seize upon, but there are lots of customs in connection with dilution and other methods, which are just as important, though that is the one which can be most easily talked about in general terms. Output cannot be increased, it seems to me, unless by mutual co-operation of employers and employed. Both sides have tended in the past often to hamper it, the employers by sweating piecework wages, not realising that if work brings in more, so much the better for both, and men's unions having too often been compelled by such operations to seek by customs and instructions to see that men do not produce too much, for fear of having wages reconsidered. If we
could only get a wide co-operation on both sides, I feel there is much more to be hoped for than from any specific legislation dealing with the particular customs or the particular practices, or any particular output that is desired. Therefore, I have great pleasure in welcoming the Bill.

7.0 P.M.

Rear-Admiral ADAIR: I had the misfortune to be sitting on a Committee all the afternoon, so that I have missed a great deal of what I should like to have heard, particularly the statement of the Minister of Labour. But, since I have been here, I have heard several interesting speeches, in which I heartily concur. There is no question, of course, that we have to restore these rules, practices, and customs, but I do feel that this new House which was not the author of this arrangement, should know something about what the restoration of these rights means, and to what we are really committing ourselves." But at this hour, and after so many interesting speeches on the subject, I feel that the House does not want to be kept much longer on the Bill, and I would only refer very briefly to the question of the restriction of output. I have had twelve years' experience with the biggest engineering works in Scotland, and so I do know something about that sort of thing, particularly as concerns the Amalgamated Society of Engineers. There is no doubt that such restriction will be tremendously prejudicial to our future prosperity if it is allowed to go on, and I think it is our duty to ensure that, although we return them, the rights should not be improperly used. A good deal has been done already. The Whitley Councils have been set up, we have practically established an eight-hours day and have established a minimum wage. There is the Industrial Conference sitting now, doing most excellent work in that direction. I wish they would thoroughly study the question of piece-work. Piece-work is most essential for output, but it must be done by fair bargaining between the wage-payer and the wage-earner. If either of them depart from their fair bargain it should be dealt with as an offence against the law. If the wage-payer unjustly cuts a rate, he should be subject to fine or punishment of some sort. If the wage-earner does not carry out his fair share of the bargain he should be subject to punishment also. At the bottom of all the
"Ca'canny," jockeying for a price, and other restrictive practices there is the spirit among the wage-earners that anything they do in the way of extra effort is to the advantage of what they call the capitalist—the shareholders—and not of themselves. I will not stop to argue whether they are right or wrong, but I think it would be a most excellent thing if we could get rid of that idea in some way, and I am going to make a rather bold suggestion. It is that, in the case of big industrial joint-stock concerns, such as that with which I have been associated, the dividends should be limited. I say dividends, not profits. I want the profits to be as much as they can be, but I suggest limiting the dividends. If there is an excess of profit beyond the dividend, let it go first to establishing an ample reserve, so that in bad years the works do not have to shut down; secondly, to extensions to provide more employment if: the state of trade justifies it; and thirdly, to pay bonuses to the wage-earners who have contributed towards the excess. If such a principle were introduced, it would be an incentive to the men to do their utmost on the piecework system, knowing that after a reserve had been built up they would eventually derive direct benefit from any excess of profit that resulted from their extra labour. I believe that that would tend to eradicate this ridiculous idea of conflict between capital and labour. It is as ridiculous to talk about conflict between capital and labour as it is to talk about conflict between one's blood and one's muscle. If one's muscle is not fed with blood it will decay and die. On the other hand, the blood itself can do nothing except through the muscle, directed by the brain—the management. They are absolutely dependent the one on the other; neither can achieve anything without the other. Unless we obtain absolute harmony between capital and labour we cannot expect that there will ever be that prosperity which I hope that such a proposition as, I have made as regards excess profits may bring about, leading to greater output and greater prosperity for the country in the future.

Mr. CAIRNS: As a miners' secretary, and as one who has been a miner for forty-two years, I rise to say a word in their favour. We have been taunted with restricting the output of coal. When I commenced as a boy in the pit, the seams
were 5 feet and 6 feet high. To-day they are as low as 40 inches. The cry of the speakers to-day from the capitalist standpoint has been, "Increase your output." Geologically the theories go against that. One hon. Member said that the American miners can compete with us. Why? Englishmen are surely equal to men of any other nation under the sun. When the minimum wage was being fixed it was pointed out that our men were stripped for their work—I am speaking for Northumberland and for Durham county— our men were working in the coal face wellnigh nude on account of the heat and the closeness of the atmosphere. I wish hon. Members of this House would come and see it. Probably, if they would, we should get more sympathy. This Bill talks about restoring pre-war practices and customs, but there are some practices that I do not want to see come back. During the War we had an agreement with our coal-owners in Northumberland and Durham that there should be no reduction in wages. Now, if we go back to prewar practices and customs, there will be reductions in wages. In 1873–4 a joint committee of owners and workmen were appointed, and there was a rule laid down that if wages should rise 5 per cent. above 5s. 2d. a day the owners could claim reductions. The newspapers have been stating figures as to the wages we have been asking. which in many cases are false. We are not dependent on this Bill, We have a way of settling our own grievances, and there are many old practices and customs that have prevailed in the mines which we will not go back to. When we commence a new seam of coal the best men in the colliery go in at a bargain price, and they are allowed to produce a very large quantity of coal. If you want to fix a price of 5s. 2d. a day, you have to get 3 tons at 1s. 8½d., and the bigger the produce the less the price. I hold that the miners in the past got no encouragement: the more coal they produced, the less was the tonnage rate. I could quote prices that were fixed at 2s. a ton, and at the end of about ten years they were down to 1s. a ton. Prices that were fixed at 1s. a ton for coal filling, with a coal-cutting machine, are down to 6½. If the workmen could get 20 tons of coal to bank they would probably give him 2d. or 3d. These are historical facts. I have sat on a joint committee for twenty-six years and know perfectly well. I have heard it said that our men are restricting
output. There have been demands in certain parts of the country for the restriction of output, but in order to get a livelihood, and in order to get the produce up, they work as hard as ever they can. The difference between America and this country is that the American miner has a larger percentage of machines. A machine will cut forty yards of coal in a night; five feet in. A man probably could only cut two yards, one foot in. We do not want to go back to these old customs. We have been fighting for something else, and the soldiers who have come back to the mines have come back expecting a new Britain, and, in the language of the Prime Minister, a country fit for heroes to dwell in. I only rose to contradict the statement that our men are seeking to restrict the output of coal. Treat them well and they will give you the best possible produce that in them lies.

Captain LOSEBY: I rise because of the speech of an hon. Member who argued that, because a representative had been sent to give the views of women upon this particular Bill, therefore they were perfectly satisfied with it. I am speaking at the request of one of the largest women's organisations in this country. The attitude that they take up is very clear and very simple, and is, I think. typical of women. They respect the pledge made by the Government, a pledge which in a large degree involves sacrifice on the part of women. They recognise fully that something was given to them, and that they must give something in return. They recognise the benefits that they themselves obtained under that pledge, and I believe that, like all other women's organisations in the country, they are anxious to see that pledge redeemed to the full. They only ask that this House should recognise that it does involve a great sacrifice on the part of women, and they only ask that the pledges given by the Government should be most carefully and most scrupulously examined by the Committee in order that the sacrifices and hardships involved are not such as are unnecessary. This Bill practically bars women out of industry. At any rate it bars women from those industries where the remuneration is worth having. I should like just to read a few lines by the Prime Minister in answer to the President of the Women's Industrial League. The Prime Minister said:
Referring to the Treasury agreement made in 1915, which enabled women to enter almost every department of industry, and so assist the Nation in its dire extremity, it is my intention, if I return to power, to carry out that agreement in such away that the unions shall have no cause to complain; but when the terms of that agreement have been fully satisfied women will find ample scope for their activities in industry when the pursuits of peace are fully resumed. The Government has never agreed that new industries come under the Treasury agreement. If the restrictive clauses of that agreement are seriously believed to be of any benefit to trade unions, or any other class of the community … sacrifices of the war, … a form of profiteering which nobody who claims respect and has a sense of responsibility will ever touch.
The party to which I have the honour to belong cordially approves every word that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman opposite in regard to the trade unions. Those trade unions, excellent as they were in many respects, were almost barbaric so far as women were concerned. I think some hon. Members in this House have hardly realised that our women competitors by this situation were literally barred out of every, or almost every, industry where the remuneration was adequate. I suggest that in this matter trade unionists imitated their wealthier brethren who refused to open the legal profession to women. I for one, in favour as I am of redeeming the pledge, hope the time has come when men will waken up to a much deeper sense of chivalry, and will be prepared to concede fair play to their weaker competitors; that they will not make that use of their strength they have in the past, but be sportsmen. Women accept the pledge. They are deeply anxious, however, that somebody in this House should represent their contention that the pledge should not be made use of to drive women out of industry. The hon. Gentleman has said that there is no desire to drive women out of industry. Why, Sir, if this Bill goes through unamended women will be stampeded out of industry. In this Bill, as far as I can see, it is a criminal offence to employ women at all. They are prepared for the pledge redeemed because they realise that they took the benefit of the contract. But they ask the Committee when they are dealing with this Bill to see that no move is asked of them than can be reasonably asked, and they hope that this House will, as I know, show its sympathy with them in the struggle that lies before them.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I desire to support this Bill. I think every Member of this House knows how much it has been looked forward to by the trade unionists. I should like to touch upon one or two points in connection with the restoration of pre-war practices. In respect to the aspect touched upon by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, it is the most difficult one in industry to-day—the future of women. I myself believe it will be solved by the women at last being admitted into the trade unions as they are now admitted into the legal and medical professions. If we get the industry of the country going, I believe that probably we will be very glad to have these women who have become skilled, and very skilled some of them, during the War. There is much work waiting, I believe, for our industries when they get restarted, and I am sure that everyone in the country will be employed.
The restriction of output has been mentioned by several Members. I have talked with a great number of trade unionists on this matter. I have had the opportunity of doing so during the last few years, because I have had trade unionists on my ships. I think I understand the workman's point of view fairly well. There are two causes for this restriction. One is that in the past prices have been cut. From what I know of trade unionists, if the practice of cutting prices is abandoned by the employers the restriction of output will be also abandoned by the men. So that any fear that the restriction of output will hamper our industries as a result of this Bill I believe to be a groundless fear, if only the employers convince the workmen that they are not going to cut prices. The other reason, which I have not heard this afternoon, is the fear of unemployment. I really hope the Minister of Labour will notice what I am going to say on this point, and say something lazer on it. If you have this fear of unemployment I believe you will have bad practices in the industry, and unrest, and for a very good reason. The unemployed are the reserves of industry. The reserves of an army are not starved and kept on short commons. I do not believe we will get industrial peace until that fact is realized— that the reserves of industry ought to be kept by industry, and ought to be a first charge upon industry. We cannot have it a first charge on the State, as at present. The only sensible thing is—I believe it will
be done through the Whitley Councils—that the unemployed should be kept by the industry of which they are part.
Those in this House who talk about the restriction of output and compare us unfavourably with America do not refer to the other side of the medal. The stress and strain of industrial life in America uses up the men like using up forests of trees. The mortality, and early mortality, amongst American skilled workmen is very high indeed. I hope that in the future, while we revert to our pre-war customs, we will not drop the welfare work in our factories which has come into being during the War. This particularly refers to women. If you have a woman in the new system of repetition work necessary for the massed production that is corning in every where now—if you have a woman at complicated machinery performing only two or three distinct motions and those motions twice a minute, and doing it hour by hour, day by day, week after week, and month after month, it will affect that woman's mentality and also her health. This is a most important part of the problem. It has in it the root of unrest, and may be what is worse. I think the solution there lies in short hours and greater production during those hours.
The only weak point that I see in the Bill is the small fine of £25 per day in the case of the employer not acting according to the law. Twenty-five pounds is, I believe, too small a fine in the case of a big corporation or a big combination of employers. A federation of employers might agree to support each other and to risk being proceeded against under this Act. I hope, therefore, this will be altered in Committee and the £25 increased to at least £100, while the Court, when it gives a decision, can have power to reduce the fine in the case of a small firm.

Colonel GREIG: With what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway I thoroughly agree. I entirely welcome this Bill. We pledged ourselves at the election, and in the last Parliament on this matter. I should like to observe that I was always careful to say that we would be bound to take into consideration two new conditions that had emerged during the War. The one was the immense influx of women into our industrial life, and the second was the largely-increased use of machinery. The attitude of women is, I think, quite clear. They do not want to take the places of
those who have been at the Front. At the same time, there has been a development of women's work, and they are a little anxious about the terms of this Bill being carried out in a way in which it might be interpreted as infringing upon their right to work, and so prevent them taking part to the extent they are entitled to take in industry in the future. Not very long ago we had a Bill introduced from the other side of the House by the Labour party supporting the opening of the doors of civil and official appointments to women. There was no objection on this side of the House. What, however, is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. If the professional classes are to have an incursion of women, as they are quite ready to have, it is also right that other classes in the community, too, should open their doors to the women. I do not want at all to affect the Bill as it now stands, but I do want either the Minister or someone else to give some satisfactory assurance to the women, who are very, very anxious on this point. I had intended to cite the speech of the Prime Minister referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway who spoke a while ago. May I just cite one other paragraph in which the right hon. Gentleman said after stating that
new forms of industry were not going to be subjected to the rigid terms of the Bill. He went on to say that these new industries are already extensive, and many will arise in the near future. To ensure that our country is more self-supporting in all these industries no discrimination shall be made against the employment of women in any suitable occupation. In this way and in those industrial occupations in which women were engaged before the War opportunities of every sort will be opened up for every class of woman worker, and I believe that the real working representatives of organised labour may be trusted when the time comes to see the necessity of utilising in the interests of production and to the best advantage every class of worker available.
If that expression of opinion can be carried out, then I am sure those who, like myself, have spoken from the women's point of view to-day, will be perfectly satisfied.

Sir CROYDON MARKS: The bringing in of this Bill justifies the pledges given by a large number of men, of whom I was one. who went from this House to endeavour to get trade unionists to abandon some of their practices and abrogate
others during the time of the War. One of the chief grounds of objection to the Bill used by the men was that they did not believe that they would ever again get back to these practices if they were then given up. We endeavoured to assure these men that the Government had pledged themselves to restore the conditions, and not only that, but many of us declared that it had been promised by all parties in the House of Commons, and we also declared that the men might rely upon these conditions being restored without any question as to which Government might be in power. When we reach the Committee stage I hope the Government will consider the setting up of committees to determine what was the pre-war custom in any particular shop. There will be considerable difference of opinion, and in some parts of the country committees have been set up independently of the masters and men to make a record of the practices. It is only in the large establishments that this has been done, and if some arrangement could be made whereby, before any step was taken towards prosecuting any persons, a committee must have considered the case from the point of view of the masters and the men, fairness would be done, and equality of treatment would be secured throughout the country. At present some workshops are run on different lines to the others. I only want to get back to those many thousands of men whom we persuaded to give up their practices, and they are now having the pledge given fully confirmed by the Government. We shall now be able to show these people that such pledges can be relied upon, and that the House of Commons is prepared to carry out its promises in the future as in the past.

Mr. TYSON WILSON: I hope this Bill will be passed through ail its stages this afternoon. Whilst many of the speeches have been interesting, most of them have been asking the Government to introduce changes into this Bill; but if the Government were to accept those suggestions, they would have to alter the title of this measure. This Bill restores the status quo with regard to pre-war practices. I appeal to those who have spoken to allow the Bill to go through all its stages, in order that we may get it to the other place and placed upon the Statute Book this week. This measure provides for modifications and alterations come to by agree-
ment between the employers and the workmen. Already alterations and modifications have been made in the conditions applying to many industries, and it would be far better to do that than introduce something in the Bill which is going to cause dissension in the ranks of organised labour, and particularly organised skilled labour. If anything is introduced which does not meet with the approval of the skilled labour organisations, we shall have industrial trouble and we do not want that. We want this Bill to give employers and employed the opportunity of making new rules and establishing new customs and practices, if they wish to do so. It is outside the question altogether to introduce the matter of women workers and semi-skilled workers. We have had several strikes already against the employment of women and semi-skilled workers, and that being so the sooner we get this Bill through the less feeling will be created, and it will give trade unionists and employers a chance of making alterations in their practices and customs that may be found necessary by changed circumstances. We want to give these people a free hand in dealing with these matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED MEN (FACILITIES FOR EMPLOYMENT) BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[MR. WHITLEY in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Arrangements in Cases of Employment of Disabled Men.)

The CHAIRMAN: There are some Amendments on the Paper to Clause 1, but I am afraid they go outside the particular Resolution which was passed on the 13th of May, which does not authorise the Committee to go beyond the question of disabled men.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 (Short Title) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — MINISTRY OF HEALTH BILL.

Lords reasons for insisting on their Amendments to which this House hath disagreed, considered.

CLAUSE 6.—(Staff and Remuneration.)

(1) The Minister may appoint such secretaries, officers, and servants as the Minister may, subject to the consent of the Treasury as to number, determine:

Lords Amendment:

After the word "appoint," insert the words,
one Parliamentary Secretary and

The Lords insist on their Amendment for the following reason:
Because they consider that no case has been made oat for the unusual multiplication of Parliamentary officials in the case of the now Ministry of Health.

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): I am advised to move,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
I shall give my reasons for taking this course in a very few words. The position is this. The Amendment we are now considering was carried in another place. It then came up for discussion in the House of Commons, and after that a vote was taken and the Amendment was rejected by 170 to 25. It came up again for reconsideration in another place and the Amendment was persisted in in spite of the decision of the House of Commons, and in taking that course the majority of the House of Lords did take what might have been the very grave responsibility of putting us into this dilemma, that either a Bill which I think is earnestly desired by the country and which has won the approval both of this House and the other Chamber must be lost, or the House of Commons must in this instance give way to the judgment of the House of Lords.
It is only necessary to deal with this question in proportion to the merits of the subject under dispute. As a matter of fact, I know some members of the other place who have taken an active part in producing this result have a great belief in our old constitutional practices, and they are of opinion that no Government can get on well without it has some opposition. They have come to the conclusion that the Opposition in this House is perhaps not as strong as they would like to see it, and they have tried to make up
for it by opposition in another place. I have been rather touched by reading the enthusiastic way in which some journals like the "Daily News" and the "Westminster Gazette," who did not always take this line, have been delighted at the action of the House of Lords in this matter. I am sorry that the majority in the other place have taken this course, and I am sorry this has happened. This is certainly not my recollection of what happened on previous occasions in a difference of opinion between the two Houses, and I do not remember a single instance where on a matter like this—after all this is a matter more or less of detail where this House has insisted that you must have the additional secretary and the other Chamber says you must not—the House of Lords has taken up the view that it is the House of Commons and not the House of Lords that must give way. I do not think that is the right attitude and as Leader of the House of Commons I think it my duty to say that in a case of that kind—I speak as one who in our own councils has expressed the belief which I hold as strongly as anyone that there must be a Second Chamber, and as one who justifies, as I have done my best to do, the action of the Second Chamber—it is not the House of Commons but the House of Lords which ought to give way.
I must, however, look at this matter in view of what the result would be. We cannot afford to lose this Bill, and the present position is not serious. It only means that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health will be inconvenienced, although it is possible we may put it right later on. One of the inconveniences that will arise is that in the other place where there are so many members who are deeply interested in this subject and well qualified to speak, it will not now be possible to have this Department directly represented in the other House. I feel sure that the House of Commons will agree to accept this Amendment in the present instance. It is not serious, and anything approaching a conflict between the two Houses would be grave indeed. We are living in very serious times, and we cannot afford to take liberties which might be taken without danger in other times, and I think it is the duty not only of the Government but of everyone who has power at any
time to realise that power must be exercised with a full sense of responsibility.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I agree in the main with the statement which has been made by the Leader of the House. I am sure that we are all glad to hear the Leader of the House stand up for the position which the House of Commons ought to hold in the constitution. I shall never quarrel with any right hon. Gentleman, whatever his past expressions of opinion may have been, for standing up for the undoubted right of this House of Commons to control the expenditure of the country. I wish, however, to point out that at this moment, when the gravest need is for public economy and when the very greatest danger which this country is running arises from the profligate expenditure of the Government in a House of Commons which has been newly returned from the polls, an expenditure is passed and it is left to another place, not in touch with the electorate, to make an economy which, although small and only a matter of detail, is absolutely in line with what I believe to be the earnest desire of the people of this country. The House of Commons is shown under the direction of the present Government to be unable to make an economy, and it is left to another place to force an economy, however small, on the House.

Mr. R. McNEILL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has expressed himself as pleased with what has fallen from the Leader of the House. I am equally pleased with what has fallen from the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It is certainly very refreshing to hear from that Front Bench that in a matter of this sort the House of Lords represents the opinion of the country better than this House, and as the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would forgive my right hon. Friend for anything that he has said in the past, I feel rather inclined to extend that same indulgence to the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself. I confess that I am not at all sorry at the action the House of Lords has taken. It may seem inconsistent to say so inasmuch as I was one of that gigantic majority in this House to which the Leader of the House has referred. It only shows, however, that the House of Lords is more independent than this House. I agree that this is an economy that the country desires, and which I think it is proper to make,
but in point of fact I was not sufficiently independent, and I had not the heart to vote against my right hon. Friend. When the Government expressed their desire to appoint this second secretary, and when they put on that very menacing procedure of the Government Whips, I confess that my independence may have entirely evaporated and that I voted against my conscience. I believe that a very large number of those who voted in the majority believed the same as I did, though perhaps they have not the same candour as I have in confessing it. I feel quite confident that a large number of those who voted with the Government in this House in their innermost hearts are not at all sorry that the House of Lords has proved itself more representative of public opinion in the country than we did here, and that they have effected this small but very useful economy.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Seal, Style, and Acts of Minister.)

(5) Sub-sections (2) to (4) of Section eleven and Section twelve of the New Ministries and Secretaries Act, 1916, shall apply to the Minister and the Ministry of Health, and to the office of the Minister of Health and in like manner as they apply to the Ministers and Ministries mentioned in those Sections:

Provided that it shall be lawful for two secretaries of the Ministry to sit as Members of the Commons House of Parliament at the same time.

Lords Amendment: In Sub-section (5), leave out the words,
Provided that it shall be lawful for two secretaries of the Ministry to sit as Members of the Commons House of Parliament at the same time.

The Lords insist on their Amendment for the following reason:

Because is consequential on the earlier Amendment on which they insist.

Resolved,
That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[Mr. Bonar Law.']

Orders of the Day — GOVERNMENT WAR OBLIGATIONS BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I beg to move,
That the Bill be now read a second time." 
I explained the purpose of this Bill in introducing the Financial Resolution to the
House, but at that time I gave an undertaking that I would tell the House how we stood with regard to certain of the obligations existing at the present time. The largest financial obligations entered into at the beginning of the War were guarantees given to the Bank of England in connection with the discounting of bills of exchange, advances to acceptors of bills of exchange, and certain loans to members of the Stock Exchange. Those steps which were taken to avert a terrible financial calamity in this country were taken on the outbreak of war, and no new obligations of that nature have been entered into since the year 1915, nor will have to be entered into again under these bills. It will be of interest to the House to know, with regard to the first item of advances on account of the discounting of bills of exchange, that the obligation originally amounted to no less a sum than £120,000,000. All of it has now been repaid, except an amount between £40,000 and £.50,000. The advances to acceptors of bills of exchange amounted to something over £70,000,000, and of that £50,000,000 has been repaid. There is still £20,000,000 outstanding, but naturally the liquidation of that class of business is a very slow process, and I am not apprehensive that the ultimate obligation will be of a serious nature. To members of the Stock Exchange £500,000 was advanced by way of loan, and every penny of that has been repaid. There were sundry payments guaranteed on account of insurance, both of ships and of seamen's effects, and various other things of that kind, very full details of which have been presented to the House quite recently and will be found in Command Paper 98 of the current year. It is a very exhaustive and interesting document.
With regard to the obligations in the previous Bills, covering payments for food supplies and things of that kind, I do not believe that any ultimate obligation will rest upon the Exchequer. In all those cases whatever is purchased is resold in the country, and the price at which the articles are resold is calculated, if practicable, to cover the cost of import. The only ultimate obligation will be in the event of any of those transactions showing a loss. With regard to the two new obligations—those, of course, which have arisen since the passing of the last War Obligations Act, of 8th August, last year—one has reference to the agreement with Messrs. Pearson for boring for petroleum, that agree-
ment being contained in Command Paper 9188 of last year, which was before this House and which, if I remember rightly, was also debated in this House. The other is one in connection with the flax crop of this year. It is covered by Sub-section (3) of the operative Clause of the Bill and will amount, so far as can be foreseen, to a sum not exceeding £200,000. That, of course, is in the nature of a guarantee, and it does not necessarily mean that there will be an ultimate charge. I hope, with those few words of explanation, that the purport of the Bill and what it embraces has been made clear to the House.

Captain W. BENN: The right hon. Gentleman did not deal with Clause 1 (3) which speaks of
any obligation incurred in respect of the maintenance or assistance of flax production.
Perhaps he would explain it?

Mr. BALDWIN: I only alluded to it in giving the figures. My hon. Friend who represents the Board of Trade (Mr. Bridgeman) will be pleased to explain the purpose of it

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD or TRADE (Mr. Bridgeman): There are two purposes for which these guarantees are required. One is for the promotion of seed supplies in Canada and the other is for the development of the flaxing-growing industry in Ireland. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, owing to the breakdown of Russia, this country was put into a very difficult position with regard to the future of the flax industry, and an arrangement was made with certain farmers in Western Canada, that they should grow, for the purposes of seed, flax on an area, I think, of 30,000 acres in 1918. A guaranteed price was promised them. That arrangement was carried out, and I understand that no loss was incurred. At present there is no prospect of immediate recovery of the position in Russia, and it has been thought fit to ask the Canadian farmers to do the same again in 1919, but on a smaller area of 20,000 acres. With regard to the position in Ireland, the guarantee was £600,000, against a similar guarantee given by the Flax Society in Ireland of £200,000. The object is to carry out what is thought to be likely to prove a most valuable experiment in what is called the "Central retting of flax" in Ireland, which means collecting the flax for retting
at convenient centres instead of allowing it to bed one by the small growers in small quantities about the country and adopting improved methods. Flax retting could be carried on for a great deal longer-period in the year in these central places, because the local people can only ret their flax for a certain time on account of the temperature in the water. The work, however, can be carried on for a much longer period at these central places. It was thought that this was a most hopeful prospect for the Irish industry, and, according to the advice that I have received, there is no probability of a loss, whereas if this guarantee were not given for another year a great deal of valuable experimental work would have to be scrapped altogether, and that which has already been spent would be entirely lost. The Government guarantee will, however, only be up to £200,000, against a corresponding guarantee by the trade interests. The Government, therefore, have thought it most desirable to continue this guarantee for this year in order that the experiment may be further carried out, and they very much hope that it may do a great deal to revive the flax industry in Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH BILL.

Lords Amendment considered, and agreed to.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — JAPANESE SILK INDUSTRY.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sanders.]

Mr. REMER: In drawing attention to a point which I raised at Question Time, I should like first to refer to the question which I had on the Paper. That question dealt with the treaty which exists between this country—made in 1911—and Japan, which allows silk manufactured goods to come into this country free of duty. In his reply, the President of the Board of Trade stated that there are a number of tariff concessions made in that treaty. I have
carefully examined those concessions, and I think it should be brought to the notice not only of this House, but of the country in general, that the rates of tariff on British cotton manufactured goods going into Japan are reduced from 95 per cent. to 80 per cent. and it is an insult not only to the House but to the country generally that an exchange of free imports should be given by any Government which does not give free admission to our goods. Some time since I asked the President of the Board of Trade as to the wages paid in Japan. I asked him whether the wages were l0d. per day of thirteen hours, and he replied that he did not know. On the 26th May I again asked the right hon. Gentleman if he would state what are the wages paid to the operatives in silk factories
and the number of hours they worked a day? The reply, as I understand, of the Minister of Labour was that no authoritative data are available as to wages paid or hours worked in Japanese silk mills. But I have it on the most reliable authority that a document was issued by the Japanese Minister of Finance in 1918 which gives precisely the information which I stated in my first question, and the facts are even worse than I then gave them. In that book it distinctly states—

Notice taken that forty Members were not present; House counted, and forty Members not being present—

The House was adjourned at Seven minutes after Bight of the clock till To-morrow.